Elected Sarpanch Must Prove Matriculation Certificate Is from a Recognized Board; Failure to Do So Justifies Removal; Burden to Prove Valid Educational Qualification Lies on Elected Candidate, Not the State: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana and others

Date of Judgment: 27 April 2026

Citation: CWP-9372-2026

Bench: Justice Harsh Bunger

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the burden of proving possession of the minimum educational qualification prescribed under Section 175(v) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 lies upon the elected candidate claiming eligibility and not upon the State. The Court further held that the inquiry contemplated under Section 51(3) of the Act is quasi-judicial in nature and does not require a regular departmental inquiry, provided the elected representative is associated with the proceedings and afforded adequate opportunity to produce evidence and be heard.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner removing him from the office of Sarpanch on the ground that the matriculation certificate relied upon for contesting the election was not issued by a recognized Board as required under Section 175(v) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. He contended that the Council of Open School Education, Rajasthan, had not been declared a fake institution at the time his certificate was issued in 2018 and that the authorities had failed to conduct a regular inquiry before passing the removal order.

The High Court observed that in an earlier round of litigation, the matter had been remanded to the Deputy Commissioner to determine whether the institution was declared fake in May 2018 and whether the petitioner’s matriculation certificate was recognized by any institution or Board. Despite being granted repeated opportunities, including adjournments sought by him for collecting documents under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner failed to produce any material establishing either of these facts. He also failed to examine any representative from the Council of Open School Education, Rajasthan, to substantiate the authenticity or recognition of his certificate.

The Court held that the burden of proving possession of a valid matriculation qualification from a recognized Board squarely rests upon the candidate seeking to avail the statutory eligibility under Section 175(v). Since the petitioner failed to discharge this burden, no fault could be found with the authorities in concluding that he was ineligible to continue as Sarpanch.

Rejecting the argument that a regular inquiry was mandatory, the Court relied upon the Division Bench decision in Nisva @ Nisha Khatoon v. State of Haryana, which clarified that the inquiry contemplated under Section 51(3) is quasi-judicial in nature and not equivalent to a departmental inquiry under service rules. As the petitioner had been associated with the proceedings, granted several opportunities of hearing, and permitted to lead evidence, the statutory requirements of Section 51(3) stood fully satisfied.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the petitioner’s removal from the office of Sarpanch. It held that the petitioner had failed to establish that his matriculation certificate was issued by or recognized by a recognized Board, thereby failing to satisfy the eligibility requirement under Section 175(v) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The Court further held that the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner fully complied with Section 51(3) of the Act, as the petitioner had been afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the proceedings and produce evidence in support of his claim.