RAFIQ, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment of the District Judge Baran whereby the election petition of the respondent No. 5 has been allowed and the election of the petitioner has been set-aside on the ground that the petitioner having incurred disqualification under Section 19 (l) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 having had more than two child born into his family after the cut-off date i. e. 27. 11. 1995, was rendered disqualified to contest the election. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned District Judge erred in law in not appreciating that though eldest daughter of petitioner, Nisha, was born to his wife in 1994 before the cut-off date but she had been given in adoption to Birbal on 11. 4. 1995 and, therefore, birth of two more children thereafter would not make him ineligible to contest the election because number of children born to him after the cut-off date would in any case remain only two. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgments of this Court in Hira Lal vs. State of Raj. : 2004 (5) W. L. C. (Raj.) page 169 and Rajendra vs. State : D. N. J. (Raj.) 2005 (1) page 152. Learned counsel submitted that the document Exh. A-1, is a Certificate issued by the school where Nisha was studying in which name of Birbal was recorded as her father. Learned counsel for the respondents however opposed the writ petition and argued that the judgment passed by the learned District Judge does not suffer from any material irregularity so as to call for interference of this Court. He argued that the fact that petitioner has three children is not denied. Merely because first of his children was given in adoption would not obliterate the fact that he in fact had three children born out of the wedlock of his marriage from his wife. Learned counsel submitted that the District Judge has rightly allowed the election petition relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Javed and others vs. State of Haryana and others : AIR 2003 SC 3057. Though, the judgments of this Court referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner hold that the child born before the cutoff date and given in adoption would not be liable to be included for purposes of counting the limit of two children as mentioned in Section 19 (l) of the Act of 1994, but, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Javed and ors. (supra), there was no escape for the learned District Judge but to allow the election petition. In para 62 of the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court held as under:-      " Subject to what has already been stated hereinabove, we may add that disqualification is attracted no sooner a third child is born and is living after two living children. Merely because the couple has parted with one child by giving the child away in adoption, the disqualification does not come to an end. "
(3.) PERUSAL of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court would show that merely because couple had parted with one child by giving the child in adoption, the disqualification does not come to an end. While interpreting the scope of disqualification, the Courts have to keep in view the evil sought to be cured and purpose sought to be achieved by the enactment. If the person sought to be disqualified is responsible for giving birth to more children than two, who are living, then merely because one or more of them, are given in adoption, the disqualification is not wiped out. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the judgment of the learned District Judge. The writ petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. . ;