The petitioners filed nomination forms for contesting the forth--coming local body elections. An objection was raised that the petitioner No. l is not a Matriculate. The Returning Officer summoned the records from the concerned Board and found that the admission form for the relevant examination does not bear a photograph of the said petitioner but of some--body else. He then proceeded to question him and concluded that he was not a Matriculate. Consequently he rejected the form vide order dated 13-12--2000. An appeal was filed by the petitioners which was heard by the learned District Returning Officer, Sargodha who also proceeded to examine the records summoned from the said Board and came to the same conclusion vide order dated 15-12- 2000.
2. Learned counsel contends that a Certificate of the instant nature can only be cancelled or quashed by the Chairman of an Education Board and that too not beyond four years of its issuance; that the Returning Officer could not have held the Certificate to be bogus while scrutinising the nomination forms; that the matter ought to have been left to be decided after the election by the Election Tribunal after holding a trial.
3. As stated by me above, the Returning Officer had apart from relying upon the records of the said Board, observed that he had questioned the petitioner No. l and had expressed his satisfaction that he was not Matriculate. Under Rule 18(3) of the Punjab Local Council Election Rules, 2000, the Returning Officer has the requisite jurisdiction, either suo motu or upon any objection, to reject a nomination paper, if he is satisfied that, inter alia, the candidate is not qualified to be elected as a member. For this purpose, he has to hold only a summary inquiry as he may think fit. In view of the provisions of the said Rule, the argument of the learned counsel that the Returning Officer could not have rejected the nomination paper on the said ground or that the matter should have been left to be decided by the Tribunal after the election, does not hold much water. There is nothing in the said Rule which, in any manner,' limits or circumscribes the jurisdiction of the Returning Officer in the manner sought to be asserted by the learned counsel. The nature of the inquiry and the satisfaction as to the existence of the conditions mentioned in Rule 18(3) of the said Rules, have been left to the Returning Officer and in exercise of writ jurisdiction, it would not be possible to interfere with the said order on the grounds stated in the Writ Petition. So far as the argument regarding the power of the Chairman of the Education Board is concerned, suffice it to, say that the Calendar of the Board defines the powers of the Chairman whereas in the instant case, the powers of the Returning Officer emanate from the said Rules and I have already referred to the relevant Rule 18(3) of the said Rules above which gives sufficient powers to the Returning Officer to reject the form on his satisfaction as to the existence of the conditions laid down therein. Nothing, therefore, turns on the said argument of, the learned counsel. The Writ Petition is dismissed in limine.