2004 (1) TMI 674 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the election of the appellant in terms of Sections 100 (1) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 was valid on the ground that he stood disqualified being the holder of a post of profit under the State of Assam? Whether the appellant being a holder of an office of profit disentitled himself from contesting the election in terms of Article 191 of the Constitution of India?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant held any office of profit on the date of his nomination.
2. Whether the appellant was disqualified from being chosen to the Legislative Assembly under Article 191(1)(A) of the Indian Constitution and Sections 100(1)(a) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the appellant held any office of profit on the date of his nomination:
The High Court held that an Assistant Teacher in a school provincialised by the Government of Assam would be a holder of an office of profit under the State of Assam. The High Court noted that the appellant's services were regularized by the State, making him a government employee. However, the Supreme Court found that the appellant was rendering voluntary services without remuneration and was not recognized as a teacher by the State. The appellant's services were not protected under the 1974 Act or the rules framed thereunder, and no jural relationship between the State and the appellant existed. The Court concluded that the appellant did not hold any office of profit on the date of his nomination.

2. Whether the appellant was disqualified from being chosen to the Legislative Assembly:
The High Court ruled that the appellant was disqualified from being chosen to the Legislative Assembly as he was deemed to be a government employee due to his regularization order. The Supreme Court, however, determined that the regularization order dated 30.10.2000 was not communicated to the appellant and was provisional in nature. The Court emphasized that a valid contract of service requires an offer and acceptance, which did not occur in this case. The appellant had accepted the termination order from the Managing Committee and did not challenge it. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its judgment, as the appellant was not a holder of an office of profit and was not disqualified from contesting the election.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court committed a manifest error in holding that the appellant was disqualified from contesting the election. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the High Court were set aside. There was no order as to costs.