LexBIHARILAL DOBRAY versus ROSHAN LAL DOBRAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BIHARILAL DOBRAY.
v.
ROSHAN \_,AL DOBRAY.
November 23, 1983.
[S. Mu&TAZA FAZAL Au AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH;·J~.J
Constitution of India J950, Article 19l(l)(a) :
.
.•
'office of profil;-Hu/ding of-What is-Tesis fo.r determination.
877
Teacher in. a Basic Primary School rUn by the State ·Board of Basic.
,Educatio~ constituted under a statute-~ Whether hO/der of 'office of Profit'-~ Whether
disqua/iftedunder Artiale 19J(l)(a).·
Statutory Corporation~.:
Jne,orporation of a body corpo_rate by statute-Tests ·10 determine whether ·it
is in~t!pendent of th~ Government.
,.
Words·& Plzrases.
'office ofprofit'.:-Meaning of-Article 19l(l)(a) Constitution of India.
In.the electi~n to ~ seat in. a Le8islati.ve Asselnbly Cons.tit~ency the"
nomination paper of the respondent who Was an Assistant Teacher ih a Basic
Prim::lry School fun by the St~te .Board of Education was reje~ted ·by the
Returning offieer on th~ ground~that he was-holding an ·office of profit tinder
·the Sta,te _Government•, and he was therefore disquiilified undef Article 191(1)(a)
of the Constitution, for being chosen as a member" Of the LegislatiVe Assembly.-
In the election tho appellant was de~lared elected.
·
In his Election Petition. the respondent contended that since the post of
Assistant Teacher In a ea.sic Primary School which he was h.olciing was not· an
A
B
c
D
E.
\
F
'office of profit under the State Government',· the· rejection of hi& · norr.ination
· G
was improper and therefore the· election was liable'. to be deClared as void .. The
High Court allowed the Election Petition holding ·that the post. held by the
respondent was not an. •office of the ·prOfit under the State Goveroriient'. It
declared the election. as ·void by reason of the improper rejection of the
resp.ondcnt's nomiDation paper.
·
.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
H
A
B
c
D
E
I
G
Li
878
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1984) l s.c.R:
HELD : 1. The responder.it was holding an 'office of profit urider the
:st-ate·Government' and his nomination .was rightly rejected by the Officer.
[901 AJ
In the inStant. case, the; respond~nt Was holding the post of Assistant
Te"acher "in a Basic Prin1ary School on·the date of his noffiination as a candidate
at the election an4 was in receipt of the salai-y attached to that post.· The
Institution wherein he was emPioyed wits being run ·and managed by the Zita
Parishad and the respon,dent was therefore an employee of the Zila Parishad.
On the promulgation of the U.P. -Oftlinance No. 14.0f 1972 which was.
replaced- by t.he U.P. Basic Edtication Act, 1972 he b~came an employee
of the. BOard under 'section 9(1) cif the ACt which provided· for ·the transfer
of employees of I0Cal bodies tQ. the B~ard. The State Governnient under
section 19 framed the Uttar Pfadesh Basic Educational Staff Rules, 1973 which
wer~ applicable to al~l the employees of the Board. The appointing .authority' in
respe"ct of Assistant Teachers was the District Basic Education Officer, who was
an officer ai)pointed Qy the State Government. The Suchedule to the Rules
prescribed the appointing aut~orities and the appellate allthorities in-respect of
different posts 1n {he Board. The Rules provided. for the procedure to be
followed in disciplinary proCeeding and the pullishtnent that niay be impOsed
wheq an employee was found guilty of any act o(misconduct. The procedure
laid down in the Civil ServiCes {Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules as
applicable to the servants of the Uttar PradesJ1 Government was required to beo
fo~lowed as far ~s possible. The funds of the Board came fro1n the contribution
n1ade by the State Government. The School in question . was not a private/}•
sponsored iristitution wltich was recognised by the Board. The final control of the
schoOI wa.s· vested in the Governrnent ,and such control was cxerci&ed by it
through the f)irector or Deputy Director of Basic Education and other District
Basic.Education Officers. appointed by the Government .. The Board for all
practical purposes was a departmCnt of the Government and its autonomy was
negligible. The respondent therefore held an 'Office of profit und~r the State
Government'. {888 E, 893 E-897 BJ
2~ The object of en;icting Article 19l(l)(a) is that a person elected to a
Legislature should be free to carry on his duties fearlessly without being sub-
jected to an·y kind. o.f g'overninental pressu:re. If such a ·persons is holding .an
offExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.