http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: ASHOK KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AJOY BISWAS AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/11/1984

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA VARADARAJAN, A. (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR  211            1985 SCR  (2)  50  1985 SCC  (1) 151        1984 SCALE  (2)760  CITATOR INFO :  R          1992 SC1959  (12,13,19,21)

ACT:      Constitution of  India 1950  Articles  102(2)  (a)  and 191(1) (a).      ’Office of  profit under  government’-Who is  holder of such of  office of  profit  under  any  authority  or  local authority subject  to the  Control of  the State  or Central Government-Whether disqualified  from becoming  a Member  of Parliament.      Words  and   Phrases  ’office’   of  profit  under  the government of  India or  the Government of any State-Meaning of-articles 58  102(1) (a)  and 191(1)  (a) Constitution  of lndia 1950.

HEADNOTE:      Respondent  No.   1  was   employed  in   the  Agartala Municipality and  held the  post of an Assistant Accountant. The Commissioners of this Municipality were superseded by an order of  the State  Government under  Section  553  of  the Bengal Municipal  Act, 1932  as extended  to  the  State  of Tripura in  1975. Respondent  No, 1 who was under suspension at the  time of  supersession was  dismissed from service in the   disciplinary    proceedings   against   him   by   the Administrator of  the Municipality  on 20th  December, 1975. The State  Government  confirmed  the  order  of  dismissal. Respondent No.  1 was  however reinstated  to  the  post  of Accountant-in-charge on  6th May, 1978 with immediate effect by the Administrator.      Respondent No.  I  contested  the  mid-term  Lok  Sabha election held  in 1980  from the  West Tripura Parliamentary Constituency, and was declared elected on 8th January, 1980.      The  appellant  who  was  a  voter  filed  an  Election Petition in  the High Court contending that respondent No. 1 was disqualified  for being elected as a member of the House of  People  as  he  held  an  office  of  profit  under  the Government  of   Tripura  within   the  meaning  of  Article 102(1)(a) of  the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition holding  that Respondent  No. 1   held an office of profit under the Government of Tripura. 51

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

    In the  appeal to  this Court  on the question: whether respondent No. 1 A held an office of profit under sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) of Article 102 of the Constitution.      Dismissing the Appeal. ^      HELD: 1. Whether in a particular case a person holds an office of  profit under  the government  or not  must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the relevant provisions. To make  in all cases employees of local authorities subject to the  control of  Government, holders  of office of profit under the  Government would  be to  obliterate the  specific differentiation made under Article 58(2) of the Constitution and to  extend disqualification  under Article 102 (1)(a) to an extent  not warranted by the language of the Article. 162 E-F]      In the instant case, having regard to the provisions of the Bengal  Municipal Act,  1932 as extended to Tripura, the Government does  not control  officers like respondent No. I and he  continues to  be an  employee  of  the  Municipality though his appointment is subject to the confirmation by the Government. He  does not  cease to  be an  employee  of  the Municipality. Local authority as such or any other authority does not  cease to  become independent  entity separate from Government. [62 D-C]      2. Respondent  No. I  was not  at the  relevant time  a holder of office of profit under the Government. Some amount of control  is recognised even in a local authority which is taken account  of under  Article 58.  The High Court rightly held that  respondent No.  1 did  not hold  office of profit under the Government of Tripura on the date of filing of the nomination on an analysis of relevant provisions of the Act. [62 G-H]      3. The  object  of  enacting  provisions  like  Article 102(1)(a) and  Article 191(1)(a)  is that  a person  who  is elected to  a Legislature  or Parliament  should be  free to carry on  his duties  fearlessly without  being subjected to any kind  of government pressure. The term "office of profit under the Government" used in clause (a) is an expression of wider import  than a post held under the Government which is dealt with  in Part  XIV of the Constitution. The measure of control by  the Government  over a local authority should be judged in  order to  eliminate the possibility of a conflict between duty  and interest and to maintain the purity of the elected bodies. [61 G-H]      4. It will be clear from reference to Item S in List II of VII  Schedule of  the Constitution  that Municipality are separately mentioned  in  contra-distinction  of  the  State government. Therefore, a local authority as such is separate and distinct.  This becomes further clear from Article 58(2) of the Constitution.                                                       [57 D]      5. A  person who  is holding an office of profit either under the Government of India or the Government of the State or any other local or other authority subject to the control the  said   Governments  is  disqualified  from  becoming  a President but  if a  person holds  an office of profit under the Government  of India  or the Government of any State, he only is  disqualified from  going a  member of Parliament. A holder of the office of profit under any 52 authority or  local authority  subject to the control of the State or Central Government is as such not disqualified from becoming a Member of Parliament.                                                     [58 C-D]      D. R.  Gurushantappa v.  Abdul  Khuddus  Anwar  &  Ors.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

[1969] 3  S.C.R. 22S,  Gurugobinda Basu  v.  Sankari  Prasad Ghosal &  ors. [1964]  4 S.C.R. 311. Maulana Abdul Shakur v. Rikhab Chand  [1958] S.C.R.  387, Surya  Kant Roy v. Immamul Hai Khan [19751 3 S.C.R., 909, and Madhuker G.E. Pankakar v. Jaswant Chobildas Rajni & Ors. [1975]3 S.C.R. p. 832 at page 851, referred to.      Biharilal Dobray  v. Roshan  Lal Dodray  [1984]1 S.C.C. 551, explained.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1724 of 1982.      From the  Judgment and order dated the 15th March, 1982 of the  Gauhati High Court (Agartala Bench) in E.P. No. 2 of 1980.      G.L.  Sanghi,  S  K.  Nandy  and  S.  Parekh,  for  the Appellant.      R.K. Garg and S.C. Birla for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SABYASACHI MUKHARJI,  J. This  appeal arises out of the judgment and  an order  of the  Gauhati  High  Court  in  an election petition.  The petitioner  appellant was a voter in the West  Tripura  Parliamentary  Constituency  from  No.  7 Ramnagar Assembly  Segment. He  contested the  mid-term  Lok Sabha  election   held  in   1980  from   the  West  Tripura Parliamentary Constituency  as a  nominee of  congress  (1). There  were   six  candidates   including   the   petitioner contesting the  said election.  The respondent  No. 1  was a C.P.I.(M) candidate.  8th December,  1979 was  the  date  of filing of  the nominations.  Nominations were scrutinised on 11th  December,  1979  and  the  withdrawal  date  was  13th December, 1979.  On 6th  January, 1980  the polling was held and the  result of the election was declared on 8th January, 1980. The  main contest was between the petitioner/appellant and the  respondent No. 1, Ajoy Biswas. The respondent No. I had secured  198335 votes  as against  the appellant who had secured 1,42,990  votes. The  respondent No.  1 was declared elected.      The only  point on  which the  election petition by the appellant/ petitioner  was pressed before the High Court and the only  point urged  before us  in this appeal, is whether the respondent No. 1 was disqualified for being elected as a member or the House of People as he held an office of profit under the  Government  of  Tripura  within  the  meaning  of Article 102(t)(a) of the Constitution. On the relevant date, respondent  No.   1  was  the  Accountant-in-charge  of  the Agartala 53 Municipality.  Therefore,  the  question  involved  in  this appeal,  is,   A  whether  an  Accountant-in-charge  of  the Agartala Municipality  holds all office of profit within the meaning of Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution In order to determine this  question, it  will be  necessary to refer to certain facts.      Respondent No.  1 was employed in Agartala Municipality and held  the post  carrying the  scale of pay of Rs. 80-180 per month.  The Commissioners  of the  Agartala Municipality ware superseded  by an  order of  the State Government under Section 553 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 as extended to the State  of Tripura  in 1975. The effect of Section 554 of the said  Act is  that during the period of supersession the powers and duties of the Commissioners and Chairman shall be exercised and  performed by  the Administrator  appointed by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

the State  Government under that section. The respondent No. 1 who  was under  suspension at the time of supersession was dismissed  from  service  in  the  disciplinary  proceedings against  him   by  the   Administrator  of   the   Agartala, Municipality on  20th December,  1975. The  State Government thereafter had  confirmed the  order of  dismissal. When the Left Front Government came in power in the State of Tripura, the respondent No. was reinstated to the post of Accountant- in-charge of  Agartala Municipality  on 6th  May, 1978  with immediate effect  by the  Administrator. So  at the relevant time he  was an  Assistant Accountant and was Accountant-in- charge under  the Agartala  Municipality drawing  a  monthly salary of Rs. 200.      It is  necessary to  briefly note  some of the relevant provisions of  the said Act in view of the contentions urged in this  appeal. Proviso  (ii) to  Section 66(2) of the said Municipal  Act  provides  that  no  appointment  carrying  a monthly salary  of more  than two hundred rupees or a salary rising by  periodical increments  to more  than two  hundred rupees shall  be created  without the  sanction of the State Government, and every nomination to, and dismissal from, any such nomination  shall be  subject to  confirmation  by  the State Government.  It appears  that the  Deputy Secretary to the Government  of Tripura  by his letter dated 6th May 1978 had conveyed  to the  Administrator, Agartala  Municipality, decision of  the Government for cancellation of the order of confirmation of  the dismissal  communicated to  him on l9th December, 1975.  As a  result, the cancellation order ceased to be  effective and  respondent No. I was reinstated and it was further  provided that  the period  between the  date of dismissal all  the date of reinstatement would he treated as period spent on duty for all purposes. 54      The  Act   further  provides   that  there   shall   be established for  each Municipality  a body  of Commissioners consisting of  such members  or Commissioners not being more than twenty  nor less  than six  as the State Government may specify in  the notification  constituting the municipality. Such Commissioners  shall be a body corporate by the name of the Municipal  Commissioners of  the place  by reference  to which the Municipality is known, having perpetual succession and a  common seal,  and by that name shall sue and be sued. The Municipality  consists of  the elected  Commissioners. A Chairman is  elected by  the Commissioners  from amongst the Commissioners within 30 days from the date of publication of the result  of the  general election of the Commissioners in the Municipality  failing which the State Government has the power to  appoint one of the Commissioners to be Chairman. A Vice-Chairman is also to be elected from amongst themselves. The Chairman  is empowered  within  certain  limitations  to transact the  business connected  with the  Act and exercise all the  powers vested  in the  Commissioners under the Act, except as  otherwise provided. The Commissioners are to hold office for  four years commencing from the date of the first meeting of  the newly  formed body  of Commissioners after a general election  of Commissioners  in the  Municipality  at which a  quorum is  present. An  elected Chairman  or  Vice- Chairman may  at any  time be  removed from  his office by a resolution of  the Commissioners  as laid  down  in  section 61(2) or  (3) of  the said  Act. The  Act also empowered the State  Government  to  remove  an  elected  Commissioner  on certain grounds set out in section 62 of the said Act.      In view  of the  contentions raised  in this appeal, it would be  relevant to  refer and  set out  section 66 of the said Act which is as follows:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

    "66. APPOINTMENT OF SUBORDINATE OFFICERS.           (1) The Commissioners at a meeting may, subject to      the provisions of  this Act  and the  rules made thereunder from time to  time, determine  what officers and what servants of the Commissioners are necessary for the municipality and may fix the  salaries and  allowances to  be paid and granted to such officers and servants.      (2) Subject  to the  scale of establishment approved by the Commissioners  under sub-section (1), the Chairman shall have power to appoint such persons as he may think fit, and 55      from time  to time to remove such persons and appoint A      others in their places:           Provided as follows:      (i)  a person  shall not  be  appointed  to  an  office           carrying a  monthly  salary  of  more  than  fifty           rupees or a salary rising by periodical Increments           to more  than fifty rupees without the sanction of           the Commissioners  at a meeting, and an officer or           servant whose  post carries  a monthly  salary  of           more than  twenty rupees  shall not  be  dismissed           without such sanction;      (ii) no appointment  carrying a  monthly salary of more           than two  hundred rupees  or a  salary  rising  by           periodical increments  to more  than  two  hundred           rupees shall  be created  without the  sanction of           the State Government, and every nomination to, and           dismissal from,  any  such  appointment  shall  be           subject to confirmation by the State Government."      (iii)     no  person   holding  an  office  carrying  a           monthly salary of one hundred rupees or more shall           be dismissed  unless such  dismissal is sanctioned           by a  resolution of  the Commissioners passed at a           special meeting called for the purpose and, except           with the  consent of  the State  Government unless           such resolution has been supported by the votes of           not less  than two-thirds  of the  total number of           Commissioners holding office for the time being.           (3) Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub-      section (2),  the creation  of  and  nomination  to  or      suspension, removal  or dismissal  from,  the  post  of      Executive officer  shall, irrespective  of  the  salary      assigned to the post, be subject to confirmation by the      State Government."       The Act further provides that besides the officers and the servants  mentioned above,  all or  any of  the officers mentioned  in   section  67   may  be   appointed   by   the Commissioners. In  certain circumstances,  the Act provides, that the  State Government may have an Executive officer for such period as may be specified in the Notification. Section 93 provides that as soon as may be after the first 56 day of  April in  every year not later than such date as may be fixed  by the  State Government,  the Commissioners shall submit  to   the  State   Government   a   report   on   the administration of the Municipality during the preceding year in such  form and  with such details as the State Government may direct, and a copy of the report shall also be submitted by  the   Commissioners  to  the  District  Magistrate.  The Commissioners  of   a  Municipality  may  acquire  and  hold property within  or without  the limits of the Municipality, and all  property within  the  Municipality  of  the  nature specified in  section 95,  other than property maintained by the Central  Government or  any other  local Authority,  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

vested in  and belong  to the  Commissioners, and  are under their direct  management and  control. By Section 102 of the said Act,  the Commissioners are empowered to purchase, take on lease  or otherwise  acquire any land for the purposes of the said  Act, and  may sell,  lease, exchange  or otherwise dispose of any land not required for such purposes. They are also empowered  to  enter  into  and  perform  any  contract necessary for  the purpose  of the  Act. A  fund called  the Municipal fund  is constituted for each Municipality and all sums received by or on behalf of the Commissioners under the said Act  or otherwise, and the balance, if any, standing at the credit  of the Municipal fund of the Municipality at the commencement of the said Act, are credited to the said fund. The purposes  to which  the Municipal Fund is applicable are enumerated in  section 108  of  the  Act.  If  any  work  is estimated to  cost above  ten  thousand  rupees,  the  State Government may require the plans and estimates of such works to be submitted for its approval, or for the approval of any servant of  the Government before such work, in such form as it might prescribe.      There are provisions for imposing taxes, tolls and fees under section  123 of the said Act and to make assessment of the rate  on the  annual value of the holdings under section 128 of  the said  Act. Powers are conferred to impose taxes. There  are   other  provisions  for  raising  fund  for  the Municipality by  way of  charging fee  for registration etc. The Act  empowers raising  of funds for the Municipality for carrying out the purposes of the said Act.      In this  connection it  may be  relevant  to  refer  to clause (31)  of section  3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and in  view of the provisions of the Act it was held by the High Court that Agartala Municipality is a ’Local authority’ within the  meaning of  that expression as defined in clause (31) of  section 3  of the General Clauses Act, 1897. We are of the opinion that the High Court was right. 57      In view  of the  facts narrated before, it was found by the High  A Court  and  in  our  opinion  rightly  that  the respondent No.  I was at the relevant time holding an office of profit  under a  local municipality.  Section 66 which we have set  out here  in before indicates that the appointment of persons  to the category of post held by respondent No. 1 was to be made by the Commissioners of Municipality, but the appointment was  subject to  the confirmation  by the  State Government. The  High Court  held and  we are of the opinion rightly that  the respondent  No. 1  was an  officer of  the Commissioners. Section 63 of the said Act provides that such officers  and   servants  of   the  Commissioners  shall  be subordinates to  the  Executive  officer  appointed  by  the Commissioners.  The   respondent  No.  I  was  appointed  by Commissioners,  though   sanction  of   the  Government  was obtained. He  could be  removed by  the Commissioners  again subject to  the sanction  of the Government. He was paid out of the  municipal funds  which the  Municipality was  and is competent to  raise. From  the analysis of the provisions of the Act  it is  clear that  though the  Government exercises certain amount  of control  and supervision,  the respondent No. I  was not  an employee  of the  Government nor  was  he required  to   perform  governmental   functions   for   the Government.      Municipalities    are     separately    mentioned    in contradistinction of  the State  Government as  it  will  be clear from  reference to  Item S  in  List  II  of  the  VII Schedule of  the Constitution.  Therefore, a local authority as such  is a separate and distinct entity. This will become

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

further clear from Article 58(2) of the Constitution.      The  question   involved  in  this  appeal  is  whether respondent No.  1 held  an office of profit under sub-clause (a) of  Clause (1)  of Article 102 of the Constitution. Sub- clause (a) of Article 102 (1) provides as follows:-      "Art. 102-Disqualification for membership.-         (1) A  person shall be disqualified for being chosen      as,  and  for  being,  a  member  of  either  House  of      Parliament-      (a)  If  he  holds  any  office  of  profit  under  the           Government of  India  or  the  Government  of  any           State, other than an office declared by Parliament           by law not to disqualify its holder;"      In contra-distinction,  clause (2)  of Article 58 which mentions  disqualifications   for  election   as   President provides as follows :- 58      "58 Disqualifications for elections President:           (1).....           (2) A person shall not be eligible for election as      President if he  holds any  office of  profit under  the Government of India or  the Government  of any State or under any local or other authority  subject to  the control  of any of the said Governments."      In fact  a person  who is  holding an  office of profit either under  the Government  of India  or the Government of any State  or under  any local or other authority subject to the control  of any  of the said Governments is disqualified from becoming  the President but if a person holds an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State  he only  is disqualified  from being  a member of Parliament. A holder of the office of profit under any local or other  authority subject  to the  control of the State or Central Government is as such not disqualified from becoming a Member of Parliament. Keeping in view these provisions, it is necessary  consider the  question whether  the respondent No. 1  was holding  an office  of  profit  under  the  State Government.      In the  case of  D. R.  Gurushantappa v.  Abdul Khuddus Anwar &  Ors.,(l) this  Court  had  to  consider  whether  a candidate employed  in a company owned by the Government was disqualified under  Article 102(1) (a) and 191 (l)(a) of the Constitution and  in this connection considered the relevant provisions of  Articles 102(1)  (a) and  191(1) (a)  of  the Constitution. After  discussing the case of Gurugobinda Basu v. Sankari  Prasad Ghosal  & ors.(a) and the decision in the case of  Maulana Abdul Shakur v. Rikhab Chand,(3) this Court come  to   the  conclusion  that  the  mere  fact  that  the Government had  control over the Managing Director and other Directors  as  well  as  the  power  of  issuing  directions relating to the working of the company could not lead to the inference that  every employee  of the company was under the control of the Government.      The true principle behind this provision in Article 102 (1) (a) is that there should not be any conflict between the duties and  the interest  of an  elected member.  Government controls various activities (1) [1969] 3 S.C.R. 425 (2) [1964] 4 S.C.R. 311 (3) [1958] 3 S.C.R. 387 59 in various  spheres and  in various  measures. But  to judge whether A  employees of  any authority  or local authorities under the  control of Government become Government employees

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

or not  or holders  of office of profit under the Government the  measure   and  nature   of  control  exercised  by  the Government over  the employee must be judged in the light of the facts  and circumstances in each case so as to avoid any possible conflict  between his personal interests and duties and of the Government. This position was further examined in the case  of Surya Kant Royv.lmamul Hai khan.(1) There under Bihar and Orissa Mining Settlement Act, 1920, a Board called the Mines  Board of Health may be established to provide for the control  and sanitation  of any  area within  which  the persons employed  in a  mine reside  and for  the prevention therein of  the out-break  and spread  of epidemic diseases. After analysing the facts of that case, this Court held that the mere  fact that  the candidate was appointed Chairman of the Board  by State  Government would  not make him a person holding an  office of  profit under  the  State  Government. There the Supreme Court referred to the decision in the case of Shivamurthy  Swami v.  Agadi Sanganna Andanappaa.(2) This Court in  Surya Kant Roy v. Imamul Hai Khan (supra) observed at page 911 as follows:-           "Here again  it is  to be  pointed  out  that  the      Government does not  pay the  remuneration nor  does the holder perform his functions for the Government. To hold otherwise would be to hold  that local bodies like Municipal Councils per- form their functions  for the  Government though in one sense the functions they perform are governmental functions."      in the  case of  D.R. Gurushantappa  v.  Abdul  Khuddus Anwar &  Ors. (supra)  mentioned here in before, at page 434 this Court observed as follows:-           "Thus, in  the case  of election  as President  or      Vice President, the disqualification arises even if the      candidate is  holding an office of profit under a local      or any other authority under the control of the Central      Government or  the State  Government, whereas,  in  the      case of  a candidate for election as a Member of any of      the Legislatures, no such disqualification is laid down      by the  Constitution if  the office  of profit  is held      under a local or any other authority under (1) [1975] 3 S.C.R. 909 (2) [1971] 3 S.C.C. 870 60      the control  of the  Governments and not directly under      any of  the Governments. This clearly indicates that in      the case  of eligibility  for election as a member of a      Legislature, the holding of an office of profit under a      corporate body  like a  local authority  does not bring      about disqualification  even if that local authority be      under the  control of  the Government. The mere control      of the  Government over  the authority having the power      to appoint,  dismiss, or  control the  working  of  the      officer employed  by such authority does not disqualify      that officer  from being  candidate for  election as  a      member of  the Legislature  in the manner in which such      disqualification comes into existence for being elected      as the President or the Vice-President. The Company, in      the present  case, no  doubt did come under the control      of the  Government and  respondent No. I was holding an      office of profit under the Company; but, in view of the      distinction indicated  above,  it  is  clear  that  the      disqualification laid  down under  Art. 191  (1) (a) of      the Constitution  was not  intended  to  apply  to  the      holder of such an office of profit."        This  view was  again reiterated by this Court in the case of Madhuker G.E. Panakakar v. Jaswant Chabbildas Rajani

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

& Ors.(1) where this Court observed as follows:-           "The core question that comes to the fore from the      survey of the panorama of case law is as to when we can      designate a  person  gainfully  engaged  in  some  work      having a  nexus with  Government as  the holder  of  an      ’office of  profit’ under  Government in the setting of      disqualification ,  for candidature  for  municipal  or      like elections.  The holding  of an  office denotes  an      office and connotes its holder and this duality implies      the  existence   of  the   office  as   an  independent      continuity and an incumbent there of for the once.      Certain aspects appear to be elementary. For holding an office of  profit under  Government one  need not  be in the service of  Government and  there need be no relationship of master and  servant (Gurugobinda  supra). Similarly, we have to look  at the  substance, not  the form.  Thirdly, all the several factors  stressed by  this Court as determinative of the holding  of an  ’office’ under  Government, need  not be con- (1) [1976] 3 S.C.R. 832 at 851 61      jointly present,  the critical  circumstances, not  the      total   factors, prove  decisive. A  practical view not      pedantic basket of tests, should guide in arriving at a      sensible conclusion."      In a  recent decision  of this  Court in  the  case  of Biharilal Dobray  v. Roshan  Lal  Dobray,1  this  Court  was concerned with  the question  whether an  office profit  was held directly  under the   Government  in the  facts of that case. There  was an  assistant teacher  of a  Basic  Primary School run by U.P. Board of Basic Education under U.P. Basic Education Act,  and it  was held  that it  was an  office of profit under  the State  Government within  the  meaning  of Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution and therefore he was disqualified  from   election.  There   the  respondent  was originally employed  as an  assistant  teacher  in  a  Basic Primary School  which was  being run and managed by the Zila Parishad. On  coming into  force of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972,  he  became  an  employee  of  the Board of Basic Education under Section 9  (1) of  the Act.   While  holding the post  of  an assistant teacher  as such   he  filed  his nomination for his election  to   the   State    Legislative Assembly. But the Returning  officer rejected his nomination paper  on the ground that he was holding an office of profit under the State Government and  hence  he  was  disqualified under Article 191  (1)  (a) for  being  elected  as  an MLA. Article 191 (1) (a) is in  terms pari  materia with  Article 102  (1) (a) of the Constitution regarding  the election  to the State Assembly. The respondent  herein filed an election petition and the High Court  allowed the same declaring that the election of the appellant by rejecting the nomination of the respondent was void.  The appellant  therefore preferred the appeal to this Court.  This Court  allowed  the   appeal and it was held that the  respondent was  holding an  office of profit under the State Government.      As we  have mentioned  before, the  object of  enacting provisions like  Article 102  (1) (a) and Article 191(1) (a) is  that  a  person  who  is  elected  to  Parliament  or  a Legislature should be free to carry on his duties fearlessly without  being   subjected  to   any  kind  of  governmental pressure. The  term ’ office of profit under the Government" used in  clause (a)  of Article  1O2(1) is  an expression of wider import  than a post in connection with the union or of any  State   which  is   dealt  with  in  part  XIV  of  the Constitution. The  measure of control by the Government over

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

a local authority should be judged in order to eliminate the possibility of conflict between duty and interest and to (1) [19841 I S.C.C. 155 62 maintain the  purity of  the elected bodies. After reviewing various cases, and the provisions of the various sections of the U.P.  Basic Education  Act, 1972  especially in  view of section 13 of the Act, this Court held in the last mentioned case  that  the  measure  of  control  was  such  that  U.P. Education  Board  was  an  authority  which  was  not  truly independent of  the Government  and every  employee  of  the Board was  in fact  holding an  office of  profit under  the State Government.  The statement  of objects  and Reasons of the U.P.  Basic Education Act, 1972 and sections 4, 6, 7, 13 and 19  all of  which have  been set  out in extenso in that decision make that conclusion irresistible.      For determination  of the  question  whether  a  person holds an  office of  profit under  the Government  each case must be  measured and  judged in  the light  of the relevant provisions of  the Act.  Having regard  to the provisions of the Bengal  Municipal Act,  1932 as extended to Tripura, the provisions of  which have been set out herein before, we are of the  opinion that  the State Government does not exercise any control  over officers like respondent No. 1 and that he continues to  be an  employee of  the Muncipality though his appointment  is   subject  to   the  confirmation   by   the Government. Just  by reason of this condition an employee of a local  authority does  not cease  to be an employee of the Muncipality. Local  authority as such or any other authority does not  cease to  become independent  entity separate from Government. Whether  in a  particular case  it is  so or not must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the relevant provisions.  To   make  in  all  cases  employees  of  local authorities subject  to the  control of  Government  and  to treat  them  as  holders  of  office  of  profit  under  the Government   would    be   to    obliterate   the   specific differentiation made under Article 58(2) and Article 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution and to extend disqualification under Article 58 (2) to one under Article 102 (1) (a) to an extent not warranted by the language of the Article.      Having noted  the relevant  provisions, we  are of  the opinion that  the respondent  No. 1  was not at the relevant time a holder of office of profit under the Government. Some amount of  control is  recognised oven  in a local authority which is  taken account  of under Article 58. The High Court held that  respondent No.  I did  not hold  office of profit under the Government of Tripura on the date of filing of the nomination on  an analysis of relevant provisions of the Act which we 63 have set  out hereinbefore.  We are  in agreement  with this view of the. High Court.              In  the premises,  respondent  No.  1  was  not disqualified  from   filing  his   nomination.  The  appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. N.V.K.                                      Appeal dismissed 64