IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

ANJUMAN

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CORAM:

Present :

HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL]

226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature

of certiorari

passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner,

has been removed from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat

Leharwadi, Tehsil Punha

dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P

Commissioner, Faridabad; whereby, an appeal filed by the petitioner

against order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P

2.

Panchayat Leharwadi, were held wherein, the petitioner w

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

ANJUMAN

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Ms. Upasana Dhawan, A.A.G., Haryana.

HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL]

Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature

certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P

passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner,

has been removed from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat

Leharwadi, Tehsil Punhana, District Nuh.

A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order

dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-12) passed by the learned Divisiona

Commissioner, Faridabad; whereby, an appeal filed by the petitioner

against order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P

Briefly, the by-elections for the post of Sarpanch of Gram

Leharwadi, were held wherein, the petitioner w

Page 1 of 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-19972-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision :27.08.2025

…Petitioner

…Respondents

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

Dhawan, A.A.G., Haryana.

Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature

, for setting aside the order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-10)

passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Nuh; whereby, the petitioner

has been removed from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat

A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order

12) passed by the learned Divisional

Commissioner, Faridabad; whereby, an appeal filed by the petitioner

against order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-10) has been dismissed.

elections for the post of Sarpanch of Gram

Leharwadi, were held wherein, the petitioner was declared

17

2025 (O&M)

Date of decision :27.08.2025

Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature

10)

Nuh; whereby, the petitioner

has been removed from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat

A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order

l

Commissioner, Faridabad; whereby, an appeal filed by the petitioner

elections for the post of Sarpanch of Gram

as declared

Page 2 of 17

elected. Respondent no.6-Salma also contested the afore-said elections to

the post of Sarpanch; however, she lost the same.

2.1 It appears that respondent No.6-Salma filed a complaint before

the learned Deputy Commissioner, Nuh, alleging that the educational

documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of her nomination are

fake and bogus. It was further alleged that the petitioner is an illiterate

person, who does not know how to read and write.

2.2 On the basis of the afore-said complaint, the Deputy

Commissioner, Nuh vide its letter dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure P-2),

marked an enquiry to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Punhana; who

conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 11.06.2024

(Annexure P-3).

2.3 It transpires that the learned Deputy Commissioner, Nuh, vide

letter dated 01.07.2024 got another enquiry conducted from the Chief

Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nuh; who submitted his enquiry report

dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure P-9) stating that the petitioner cannot be

considered as 8

th

pass.

2.4 Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice along with inquiry report was

served upon the petitioner vide letter dated 20.08.2024, but no reply was

given by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for personal

hearing on 05.11.2024 and 26.12.2024, wherein the petitioner could not

present any document to show that she has requisite educational

qualification.

2.5 Apparently, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Nuh, upon

consideration of the matter, passed an order dated 20.03.2025

(Annexure P-10) holding that the petitioner was ineligible to contest the

elections for the post of Sarpanch on account of the non-fulfilment of the

Page 3 of 17

minimum educational qualification prescribed under Section 175(v) of the

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short `the 1994 Act’).

2.6 Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the

order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-10) before the learned Divisional

Commissioner, Faridabad, who vide its order dated 04.07.2025

(Annexure P-12) dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, holding

that she did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of passing Class 8

th

as

prescribed by the government. The relevant extract of order dated

04.07.2025 (Annexure P-12) reads as under :-

“After hearing the arguments of both the sides and

examining the records of the following officer, it was found

that the name of the appellant was struck off due to non-

payment of school fees while studying in class 9. It is recorded

in the school records, but the Chief Administrative Secretary,

School and Sanskrit Education, Government of Rajasthan,

No.(4) Pra.Shi./2012, Jaipur, dated 08.10.2012 had issued

guidelines which were applicable from the session year 2012-

13 according to which any student would be eligible to appear

for the annual examination whose attendance in the class

should be more than 70% whereas the appellant has only 8

days of attendance while studying in the school Government

High School, Garhi Jheel Patti and neither has she appeared

in any school class test, half-yearly and annual examination in

the whole year. According to the above guidelines of the

government, the appellant is not eligible to be promoted from

class 8

th

to class 9

th

. In such a situation, as per rules, the

appellant cannot be considered as having passed Class 8

th

and

correcting any action done against the rules comes under the

category of natural justice.

In view of the above facts, the appellant does not fulfil

the eligibility criteria of passing class VIII as prescribed by

the government for the election of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat

Leharwadi. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is found

Page 4 of 17

contrary to the facts of the appellant and the order under

appeal is upheld by considering it as a mere order. The order

was pronounced. A copy of the order should be sent to the

following officer along with the record and the file should be

recorded as per the rules.”

2.7 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition

has been filed by the petitioner before this Court, for the relief/s, as noticed

here-in-above.

3. Heard.

4. Here, it would be apposite to refer to Section 175(v) of the

1994 Act, which reads as under :-

“175. No person shall be a Sarpanch, or a Panch of a Gram

Panchayat or a member of Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad

or continue as such, who

(a) to (u) xxx xxx xxx

(v) has not passed matriculation examination or its equivalent

examination from any recognized institution/board:

Provided that in case of a woman candidate or a

candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste, the minimum

qualification shall be middle pass:

Provided further that in case of a woman candidate

belonging to Scheduled Caste contesting election for the post

of Panch, the minimum qualification shall be 5th pass;”

5. Before dealing with the case in hand, it would be appropriate

to state here that Section 175(v) was incorporated in the 1994 Act by

way of Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 (in short `2015

Amendment Act’). The constitutionality of the afore-said 2015 Amendment

Act, was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, by way of

Writ Petition (Civil) No.671 of 2015 titled as Raj Bala and others vs State

of Haryana and others. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the

Page 5 of 17

matter, held as under :-

“70. We shall examine the next facet of the challenge i.e. each

of the four impugned clauses have created a class of persons

who were eligible to contest the elections to Panchayats

subject to their satisfying the requirements of law as it existed

prior to the IMPUGNED ACT but are rendered now ineligible

because they fail to satisfy one of the other conditions

prescribed under clauses (t), (u), (v) and (w) of Section 175(1)

of the Act. The case of the petitioners is that such a

classification created by each of the impugned clauses amount

to an unreasonable classification among people who form one

class but for the IMPUGNED ACT, without any intelligible

difference between the two classes and such classification has

no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

71. Learned Attorney General submitted that the object sought

to be achieved is to have "model representatives for local self

Government for better administrative efficiency which is the

sole object of the 73rd constitutional amendment".

72. In the light of the above submissions, we shall now deal

with the challenge to each of the above mentioned four

clauses.

73. Clause (v) prescribes a minimum educational qualification

of matriculation

for anybody seeking to contest an election to

any one of the offices mentioned in the opening clause of

Section 175(1). However, the minimum educational

qualification is lowered insofar as candidates belonging to

scheduled castes and women are concerned to that of "middle

pass" whereas a further relaxation is granted in favour of the

scheduled caste woman insofar as they seek to contest for the

office of Panch.

xxx xxx xxx

81. An analysis of the data in the above table indicates that a

large number of women (more than 50% of the otherwise

eligible women) in general and scheduled caste women in

particular would be disqualified to contest PANCHAYAT

elections by virtue of the IMPUGNED ACT. Even with regard

Page 6 of 17

to men, the data is not very clear as to how many of the literate

men would be qualified to contest the elections for

PANCHAYATS at various levels. Because for men belonging

to general category (39 lakhs), a uniform requirement of

matriculation is prescribed in respect of posts for which they

seek to contest. Coming to men candidates belonging to the

scheduled caste, a uniform academic qualification of "middle

pass" is prescribed. How many men under these categories

would be qualified to contest is not clear, as the exact data

regarding their respective educational qualifications is not

available on the record.

82. Coming to scheduled caste women and the proviso to

clause (v) of Section 175(1), though educational qualification

required is 5th (primary) pass, such a qualification only

entitles them to contest an election for the post of PANCH of a

village but to no other post. Therefore, if a scheduled caste

woman desires to contest either to the post of SARPANCH or

any other post at `Samiti' or District level, she must be "middle

pass". The exact number of scheduled caste women who

possess that qualification is not available on record. Even

assuming for the sake of argument that all educated scheduled

caste women indicated in the Annexure-5 are middle pass, they

only constitute 32% of the scheduled caste women. The

remaining 68% of the women would be disqualified for

contesting any election under the IMPUGNED ACT.

83. The question is - whether the impugned provision which

disqualifies a large number of voter population and denies

their right to contest for various offices under THE ACT is

discriminatory and therefore constitutionally invalid for being

violative of Article 14.

84. The learned Attorney General referred to Section 21 of

THE ACT which catalogues the functions and duties of Gram

Panchayat falling under 30 broad heads. To demonstrate the

range of those heads, he pointed out some of the duties of a

Gram Panchayat

and submitted that in the light of such

responsibilities to be discharged by members elected to the

Page 7 of 17

Gram Panchayat, the legislature in its wisdom thought it fit to

prescribe a minimum educational qualification and such a

prescription cannot be said to be making an unreasonable

classification among the voters attracting the wrath of Article

14. Several judgments of this Court are referred to emphasise

the importance of education.

85. The impugned provision creates two classes of voters -

those who are qualified by virtue of their educational

accomplishment to contest the elections to the PANCHAYATS

and those who are not. The proclaimed object of such

classification is to ensure that those who seek election to

PANCHAYATS have some basic education which enables them

to more effectively discharge various duties which befall the

elected representatives of the PANCHAYATS. The object

sought to be achieved cannot be said to be irrational or illegal

or unconnected with the scheme and purpose of THE ACT or

provisions of Part IX of the Constitution. It is only education

which gives a human being the power to discriminate between

right and wrong, good and bad. Therefore, prescription of an

educational qualification is not irrelevant for better

administration of the PANCHAYATS. The classification in our

view cannot be said either based on no intelligible differentia

unreasonable or without a reasonable nexus with the object

sought to be achieved.

86. The only question that remains is whether such a provision

which disqualifies a large number of persons who would

otherwise be eligible to contest the elections is

unconstitutional. We have already examined the scheme of the

Constitution and recorded that every person who is entitled to

vote is not automatically entitled to contest for every office

under the Constitution. Constitution itself imposes limitations

on the right to contest depending upon the office. It also

authorises the prescription of further

disqualifications/qualification with respect to the right to

contest. No doubt such prescriptions render one or the other

or some class or the other of otherwise eligible voters,

Page 8 of 17

ineligible to contest. When the Constitution stipulates

undischarged insolvents or persons of unsound mind as

ineligible to contest to Parliament and Legislatures of the

States, it certainly disqualifies some citizens to contest the said

elections. May be, such persons are small in number. Question

is not their number but a constitutional assessment about

suitability of persons belonging to those classes to hold

constitutional offices.

87. If it is constitutionally permissible to debar certain classes

of people from seeking to occupy the constitutional offices,

numerical dimension of such classes, in our opinion should

make no difference for determining whether prescription of

such disqualification is constitutionally permissible unless the

prescription is of such nature as would frustrate the

constitutional scheme by resulting in a situation where holding

of elections to these various bodies becomes completely

impossible. We, therefore, reject the challenge to clause (v) to

Section 175(1).”

5.1 From perusal of the above extracted provisions of Section

175(v) and also the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in Raj Bala’s case (supra), it would be evident that the prescription of

minimum educational qualification for contesting the election to the post of

Sarpanch/Panch (as the case may be) has a reasonable nexus with the object

sought to be achieved, moreso, consideri ng the responsibilities to be

discharged by the members elected to the gram panchayat.

5.2 A bare perusal of Section 175(v) of the 1994 Act, would show

that in case of a woman candidate, contesting the election to the post of

Sarpanch or Panch (as the case may be), the minimum educational

qualification shall be “middle pass”. The use of the term “shall” in the first

proviso to Section 175(v) emphasizes that the said requirement is

mandatory. Further, the term used is “middle pass”, which means that the

concerned candidate must have passed the middle class (8

th

class).

Page 9 of 17

6. Coming to the case in hand, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has placed on record the copy of the petitioner’s mark-sheet dated

05.08.2024 as Annexure P-17, which reads as under :-

“As per the School Record for the Year/Session 2013-14

Name :Anjuman Class and Section: VII th

Date of Birth : 25.03.2000 Name of Mother : Saidan

Name of Father : Azad Mohammad

Admission Number : 16 Roll Number : 82

Y-13 Test Result Session 2023 – 2014

Subject Total

Marks

Marks

Obtained

Result (Class 3,

4, 5)

Hindi

Maths

Environmental

Edu.

English

Grand Total

S.P.U.W.

Art Education

Health

Education

200

200

200

100

700

100

100

100

0 Ab

0 Ab

0 Ab

0 Ab

0 Ab

0 Ab

0 Ab

0 Ab

School

Meetings…..

Attendance – 16

Attendance

Percent – 0

Total Marks –

700

Marks Obtained

– 0

Percentage of

Marks Obtained

– 0%

Pass/Promoted

(Ticked)

Grade

Student No.

Rank in Class

Special

Qualification

Date

Nawkar Enterprises, AlwarSign. Class Teacher Sign. Principal

-Sd -Sd + StampDevender Singh

5/8/2024

Mahatma Gandhi Govt. School (English Medium)

District Deeg (Raj.)”

6.1 A bare look at the mark-sheet (Annexure P-17) would show

that the petitioner is stated to have obtained `zero’ marks in all the subjects,

by further writing “Ab” therein, which is stated to mean “absent”.

Page 10 of 17

6.2 When the petitioner was confronted with the afore-said fact,

this Court passed the order dated 18.08.2025, the relevant extract of which

reads as under :-

The ground for removal of the petitioner from the post

of Sarpanch is that the petitioner has not passed the 8th Class

as envisaged under the first proviso of Sub Section (v) of

Section 175, which provides that in case of a woman

candidate, the minimum qualification shall be middle pass.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the

petitioner has not disputed the fact that the petitioner never

appeared for the Middle Class Examination but was promoted

to Class 9th in view of the provisions contained in the Right to

Education Act.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a

short accommodation to cite law as to whether the benefit of

promotion granted under the provisions of the Right to

Education Act can be extended/interpreted to mean that the

petitioner has passed Middle Class Examination and that too

without even appearing for the examination.

At his request, adjourned to 27.08.2025.”

6.3 Today, the only argument sought to be raised by the learned

counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Section 16 of the Right of

Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short `the 2009

Act’), there is a prohibition for holding back any child admitted to the

school in any class or from being expelled from the school till the

completion of elementary education. Section 16 of the 2009 Act, as it

originally stood, reads as under :-

“16. Prohibition of holding back and expulsion.-No child

admitted in a school shall be held back in any class or expelled

from school till the completion of elementary education.”

6.4 By referring to the above extracted Section 16 of the 2009 Act,

learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the petitioner was

Page 11 of 17

promoted to Class 9, although she did not appear for the middle class

examination, therefore, for all intents and purposes, she has to be

considered as 8

th

pass. Accordingly, it is stated that the order of removal of

the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch is bad and is liable to be set aside.

7. I have considered the afore-said contention raised on behalf of

the petitioner, however, I find no merit in the same.

7.1 Evidently, the minimum educational qualification prescribed

for woman candidate contesting the election for the post of Sarpanch or

Panch (as the case may be) is provided in the first proviso to Section 175(v)

of the 1994 Act, which clearly states that such candidate should be middle

pass. The only interpretation to the afore-said provision is that the

concerned woman candidate, contesting for the post of Sarpanch or Panch

(as the case may be) must have passed middle (8

th

class) and there can be

no exception thereto.

7.2 Concededly, the petitioner never appeared for the middle (8

th

)

Class examination and she may have been promoted to Class 9 (although

the said fact is also being disputed by the respondents); however, she

cannot be said to hold the minimum educational qualification i.e. middle

pass for contesting the elections to the post of Sarpanch.

7.3 It also requires to be noticed herein that recently Section 16 of

the 2009 Act, has been amended by way of Act No.1 of 2019

(w.e.f. 01.03.2019), the relevant extract of amended Section 16 ibid reads

as under :-

“16. Examination and holding back in certain cases

(1) There shall be a regular examination in the fifth class and

in the eighth class at the end of every academic year.

(2) If a child fails in the examination referred to in sub-

section (1), he shall be given additional instruction and

Page 12 of 17

granted opportunity for re-examination within a period of two

months from the date of declaration of the result.

(3) The appropriate Government may allow schools to hold

back a child in the fifth class or in the eighth class or in both

classes, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may

be prescribed, if he fails in the re-examination referred to in

sub-section (2):

Provided that the appropriate Government may decide

not to hold back a child in any class till the completion of

elementary education.

(4) No child shall be expelled from a school till the completion

of elementary education.”

7.4 A perusal of the above extracted amended Section 16 of the

2009 Act, would show that now it has been provided that there shall be a

regular examination in the 5

th

Class and in the 8

th

Class at the end of every

academic session and if a child fails in the examination then the said child

shall be given an additional instruction and granted opportunity for re-

examination within a period of two months from the declaration of the

result. Sub-section 3 of the amended Section 16 of the 2009 Act, further

provides that the appropriate government may allow schools to hold back a

child in the 5

th

Class or in the 8

th

Class or in both classes, in such manner

and subject to such condition as may be prescribed, if he/she fails in the re-

examination. However, there is a proviso added to Sub-section 3 of the

amended Section 16 of the 2019 Act, which also provides that the

appropriate government may decide not to hold back a child in any class till

the completion of elementary education.

8. In the present writ petition, in para No.14(d), the petitioner has

made the following averments :-

“14(d) BECAUSE reliance has been placed on the

Circular issued by the Primary Education Department dated

08.10.2012 wherein it has been stated that due to non-

Page 13 of 17

fulfilment of the minimum attendance criteria and absence

from classes/exams, the petitioner could not have lawfully

considered as passed from Class 8. However, it has been

ignored that in terms of Section 16 of Right to Education Act,

2009 (hereinafter also referred to as the “Act of 2009” for

brevity), provided that “no child admitted in a school shall be

held back in any class or expelled from school till the

completion of elementary education.” Thus, in light of the

provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 2009, the petitioner was

rightly promoted from Class 8 to Class 9. Moreover, for the

academic session of 2013, this Act of 2009 was applicable in

the State of Rajasthan. Moreover, the application of the same

is evident from the fact that in 2015, an amendment was

brought to the amend Section 16 of the Act of 2009 wherein it

was observed that a student can be held back. It is pertinent to

note the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Right of

Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Rajasthan

Amendment) Act, 2015 wherein it is stated that :

“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,

2009 provides right to all children to free and compulsory

quality education but after implementation of some provision

of this Act some provisions are prohibiting quality of

education.

No detention policy upto class 8

th

creating problems to such

children who are not attaining minimum level of appropriate

class. These problems are realized when these children are

essentially promoted in the next class. Monitoring of providing

quality education to children by the teacher is not done by the

school management committee.”

[Emphasis Added]

Therefore, a bare perusal of the above reveals that prior to

passage of the above mentioned amendment, all students were

being promoted from Class 8 to Class 9 since there was no

detention policy in force. Thus, it cannot be rightly stated that

the petitioner has not passed Class 8 as it was only in Class 9

Page 14 of 17

that her name was struck from the rolls. Moreover a valid

Transfer Certificate has been issued to the petitioner.

Government of Rajasthan has subsequently amended the

provisions whereby there is a restricting on passing of the

students from Class 8. However, the same cannot applied

retrospectively to the prejudice and disadvantage of the

petitioner. A copy of the Circular dated 08.10.2012 is attached

as Annexure P-14, the unamended Act of 2009 is attached as

Annexure P-15 and Bill No.34 of 2015 is attached as

Annexure P-16.”

8.1 From a perusal of the above extracted para No.14(d), it is

evident that the Government of Rajasthan has issued a circular dated

08.10.2012 (Annexure P-14) thereby implementing the examination and

promotion rules, applicable to Classes 1 to 8 of Government and recognized

Primary Schools, Higher Secondary Schools, Schools of Sanskrit

Education, Schools run by Shiksha Karmi Board, Madrasas registered by

Madrasa Board and Government Secondary/Higher Secondary Schools of

Rajasthan. The afore-said circular also provides for the minimum

attendance as under :-

“2.2 Attendance count and requirement

1. In case of absence in the periodical examination and

half-yearly examination held from class 1 to 8, the head of the

institution, after being satisfied with the reasons for absence,

will conduct the periodical examination/half-yearly

examination separately when the student is present in the

school. This examination should be conducted for the subjects

in which the student was absent.

2. The attendance of regular students from class 1 to 8 will

be calculated from the date of commencement of school and

the attendance of newly admitted students will be calculated

from the date of admission (till the last admission date

mentioned in Shivira Panchang or extended period) till the day

Page 15 of 17

before the annual exam preparation holiday. This minimum

attendance will be 70 percent.

3. A student who remains absent from school for 45

consecutive days or does not achieve the required attendance

level as per 2.2(2) will be treated as a drop out and will be re-

admitted as per age and will be brought up to the level of that

class through special training.

4. After being satisfied, the head of the institution may give

relaxation upto maximum 10% in attendance for appearing in

annual examination due to illness or other reasonable reasons

at his discretion. The illness certificate shall be submitted by

the student within seven days.”

9. Evidently, the certificate produced by the petitioner, on the

basis of which she claims to have been promoted to Class 9, has been

issued by the Principal, Mahatma Gandhi Government School, Gadhi Jheel

Patti (Kamon) District Deeg, Rajasthan, under the Rajasthan Government

Education Department.

9.1 Be that as it may; even if the petitioner was only promoted to

Class 9, may be in terms of the un-amended Section 16 of the 2019 Act;

however, for the purposes of election to the post of Sarpanch in the State of

Haryana, she cannot be considered to have “passed” the “middle class” and

therefore, was ineligible to contest the election.

10. At this stage, another argument has been raised by learned

counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.6-Salma had also filed an

election petition challenging the election of petitioner as Sarpanch on

similar grounds, therefore, the instant proceedings initiated against her by

the District Authorities are bad and liable to be quashed.

10.1 I have considered the afore-said plea, however, I am unable to

accept the same; especially in view of judgment passed by the Division

Page 16 of 17

Bench of this Court in Nisva @ Nisha Khatoon v. State of Haryana,

2025(3) RCR (Civil) 273; wherein one of the questions framed was :-

(iii) Whether the election of the appellant could have been

questioned only by way of filing an election petition and not

under Section 51 of the 1994 Act?

10.2 Upon consideration of the matter, the Division Bench observed

as under:-

“19. Now coming to Issue no.(iii) as to whether the election of

the appellant could have been questioned only by way of filing

an election petition under Section 176 and not under Section

51 of the 1994 Act; suffice it to say that a careful perusal of

the provisions contained in Sections 51 and 176 of the 1994

Act, would indicate that both the said provisions operate in

different fields and there is nothing contained therein to

indicate that the said provisions exclude each other. Section

176 of the 1994 Act, operates when an election petition is

brought before the Court of Competent Jurisdiction whereas,

Section 51 of the 1994 Act, enables the Director or the Deputy

Commissioner concerned, to pass an order of removal on the

basis of the grounds specified in sub-section (3) of Section 51

of the 1994 Act.

19.1 to 19.3 xxx xxx xxx

20. Keeping in view the above discussion, it can safely be held

that the election of the appellant could have been questioned

either by filing an election petition under Section 176 of the

1994 Act or by submitting a complaint to the concerned

authority under Section 51 of the 1994 Act; therefore, Issue

no.(iii) is decided accordingly…”

10.3 Even a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14913/2025 filed

against the judgment in case of Nisva @ Nisha Khatoon (supra) has been

dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated

21.05.2025.

Page 17 of 17

11. That apart, even if any objection as regards maintainability of

the proceedings under Section 51 of the 1994 Act was to be raised, the

same was required to be done at the initial stage when the petitioner had

received a notice from the District Authorities and not after suffering

adverse order(s) and that too after participating in those proceedings.

12. No other argument has been raised.

13. Considering the above discussion, I find no merit in this

petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

14. All pending applications (if any) shall also stand closed.

August 27, 2025 (HARSH BUNGER)

gurpreet JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No