'Uttarakhand State Did Not Exist In 1996': High Court Upholds Disqualification Of Gram Pradhan For Forged Education Certificate
The Uttarakhand High Court has upheld the disqualification of a Gram Pradhan under Section 8(1)(q) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, holding that the educational certificate relied upon by her was not genuine. The Court observed that the Transfer Certificate purportedly issued in 1996 was inherently doubtful since it referred to the "State of Uttarakhand", although the State came...
The Uttarakhand High Court has upheld the disqualification of a Gram Pradhan under Section 8(1)(q) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, holding that the educational certificate relied upon by her was not genuine. The Court observed that the Transfer Certificate purportedly issued in 1996 was inherently doubtful since it referred to the "State of Uttarakhand", although the State came into existence only on 09.11.2000 and was initially named "Uttaranchal", being renamed "Uttarakhand" only on 01.01.2007.
Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari was hearing a writ petition filed by a Gram Pradhan challenging the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority declaring her disqualified and removing her from office. The petitioner had been elected as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. A complaint was subsequently made alleging that she had falsely claimed in her nomination papers to have passed Class VIII from a school in District Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, though no such institution existed. Based on the inquiry report, the Prescribed Authority declared the petitioner disqualified, and the competent authority passed an order removing her from office. The petitioner contended that the wrong name of the institution had been mentioned in the Transfer Certificate due to a clerical mistake.
The Court found no merit in the petitioner's explanation. It observed that the Transfer Certificate showed the petitioner's residence as a village in Tehsil Haridwar, indicating that she was not residing in the village in District Ghazipur, where the school was situated. It also noted that the petitioner had been born and brought up in District Haridwar and there was no plausible explanation as to why she would have received her elementary education from a school situated in a distant district of Uttar Pradesh.
The Court further observed that the Transfer Certificate was inherently unreliable as it purported to have been issued on 10.10.1996 but contained a column referring to residence in the "State of Uttarakhand", although Uttarakhand had not been created at that time.
“in October, 1996 when the Transfer Certificate was allegedly issued, State of Uttar Pradesh was not reorganized, therefore, in the assigned place where information regarding duration of residence was to be indicated, name of State of Uttarakhand could not have figured,” the Court observed.
Finding no infirmity in the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Smt. Neelam Devi v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. [Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2803 of 2024].
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (UK) 70