9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an Assistant Teacher employed in a Basic Primary School run by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education is disqualified under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution for being chosen as a member of the State Legislative Assembly. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Disqualification under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution The primary issue in this case is whether an Assistant Teacher in a Basic Primary School run by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education holds an "office of profit under the Government" and is thereby disqualified under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution from being chosen as a member of the State Legislative Assembly. Background: The appellant and the respondent were candidates in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election. The respondent's nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer on the grounds that he held an office of profit under the State Government, disqualifying him under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution. The High Court of Allahabad ruled in favor of the respondent, declaring the rejection of his nomination improper and the appellant's election void. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court. Legal Provisions: Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution states that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or any State Government. Tests for Office of Profit: The Supreme Court considered several factors to determine if the position held by the respondent constituted an office of profit under the Government: 1. Appointment by the Government: The Government appoints the members of the Board and the teachers. 2. Right to Remove or Dismiss: The Government has the authority to remove or dismiss the office holder. 3. Payment of Remuneration: The remuneration is paid by the Government. 4. Control Over Duties: The Government has control over the duties and functions of the office holder. Relevant Case Law: 1. Maulana Abdul Shakur v. Rikhab Chand & Anr.: The Court ruled that the Manager of a school run by a religious institution was not holding an office of profit under the Central Government. 2. M. Ramappa v. Sangappa & Ors.: The Court held that Patels and Shanbhogs, who were appointed by the Government and received remuneration from it, held offices of profit under the Government. 3. Gurugobinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad Ghosal & Ors.: The Court determined that a partner in a firm of auditors for government companies held an office of profit under the Government. 4. D. R. Gurushaniappa v. Abdul Khuddus Anwar & Ors.: The Court distinguished that an employee of a Government company was not holding an office of profit under the Government. 5. Divya Prakash v. Kultar Chand Rana & Anr.: The Court held that the Chairman of the Board of School Education, appointed without remuneration, did not hold an office of profit. Analysis of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972: The Act was enacted to transfer the control of primary education from local bodies to the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education, a body established by the State Government. The Board is responsible for organizing, coordinating, and controlling basic education in the State. The Board's members are appointed by the State Government, and it operates under the Government's directives. Provisions of the Act: - Section 3: Establishes the Board with members appointed by the State Government. - Section 4: Outlines the Board's functions, including supervising and controlling basic schools. - Section 6: Allows the Board to appoint teachers and employees with the State Government's approval. - Section 7: Specifies that the Board's funds come from the State Government. - Section 9: Transfers employees from local bodies to the Board. - Section 13: Ensures the Board operates under the State Government's control. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent, as an Assistant Teacher in a Basic Primary School, was holding an office of profit under the State Government. The Board, despite being a body corporate, functions as an extension of the Government, with its members and employees appointed and controlled by the State Government. The financial and administrative control exercised by the Government over the Board and its employees supports this conclusion. Judgment: The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, holding that the respondent was disqualified under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution. The appeal was allowed, and the election petition filed by the respondent was dismissed. Each party was directed to bear their own costs. Final Order: The appeal is allowed, and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The election petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.
|
