CHET RAM versus JIT SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 1124 · Decided: 22-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 1124 
A 
CHET RAM 
-+ 
II. 
JIT SINGH & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6225 Of 2008) 
B 
OCTOBER 22, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.) 
Punjab State Election Commission Act, -1994: 
-1r 
ss.11(g), 12 and 75 - Nagar Panchayat Elections - Dis-
c qualification - Candidature of Gramin Oak Sewaks to contest 
the elections challenged - Held: Gramin Oak Sewaks are Gov-
emment servants, disqualified to contest the elections - When 
an election petition is filed, all questions which arise for con-
sideration of Election Tribunal must be adjudicated upon on 
D the basis of evidence brought on record by parties - Tribunal 
has jurisdiction to determine eligibility of a candidate to con- . 
test in the election - Department of Posts, Gramin Oak Sewak 
(Conduct of Employment) Rules, 2001 - r.22(4) - Constitu-
tion of lndi8:, 1~_5.0- Articles 309, 243F and 243V 
E 
In the instant appeals filed by Gramin Oak Sewaks, 
whose candidature in contesting Nagar Panchayat elec-
tions was questioned, the issue for consideration before 
the Court was as to whether a Gramin Oak Sewak was a 
.._._..__ 
government servant and, consequently, was disqualified 
F to become a member of Nagar Panchayat in terms of Sec-
~ 
tion 11(g) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 
1994. 
Dismissing the appeals of the candidates, the Court 
.G 
HELD: 1.1 Indisputably, the terms and conditions of 
a Gramin Oak Sewak are governed by the provisions of 
t-
_.._, 
the Department of Posts, Gramin Oak Sewak (Conduct· 
· and Employment) Rules, 2001, which were framed in terms 
of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 
H 
1124 
CHET RAM v. JIT SINGH & ANR. 
1125 
.i 
1 
The Rules framed in terms of the proviso appended to A 
Article 309 indisputably govern only government employ-
ees. They are prohibited from taking part in Panchayat/ 
Nagar Panchayat elections. It was, therefore, for the ap-
pellant to show that he was not governed by the Rules. 
[Para 9] (1129-B, D, E) 
B 
Union of India and Others v. Kameshwar Prasad (1997) 
...}-
11 sec 650 - relied on . 
1.2 Section 11 of the Punjab State Election Commis-
sion Act, 1994 provides that a person shall be disquali- c 
fied for being chosen as and for being a member of a 
Panchayat or a Municipality, inter alia, if he holds an of-
fice of profit under the Government of India or any State 
Government. Section 12 lays down that if a question 
arises as to whether a member of any Panchayat or Mu-
D 
nicipality has become subject to any of the disqualifica-
tions specified in Article 243F or 243V of the Constitution 
or in Section 11 of the Act, the question shall be referred 
for decision of the State Government and its decision shall 
be final. It has furthermore been provided that before giv-
ing any decision on such question, the State Government E 
shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and 
shall act in accordance therewith. The same, however, 
would not mean that the Election Tribunal was not com-
-
petent to decide the question as to whether the returned 
/ 
"1 
candidate was or was not qualified for being chosen as a F 
member of Panchayat or Municipality. [Para 8-9] (1129-A, 
E, F, G) 
1.3 When an election petition is filed, all questions 
which arise for consideration by the Tribunal must be ad-
judicated upon on the basis of the materials brought on G 
·"" -t 
record by the parties. As regards eligibility of a candidate 
to contest in an election of the municipalities in question, 
the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the same. A find-
ing has been arrived at by it on the basis of the materials 
brought on record that the appellants were government H 
1126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 
A employees and their terms and conditions of service were 
governed by the statutory rules. The High Court has 
rightly held that the appellants were disqualified from con-
testing in the election of Nagar Panchayats. [Para 11 and 
13] (1130-D, E; 1136-B) 
8 
Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay and Others 2001 (3) 
SCR 1020 = (2001) 7 SCC 425; M. V Rajashekaran and Oth-
ers v. Vatal Nagaraj and Others 2002 (1) SCR 412 = (2002) 2 
SCC 704; Guru Gobinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad Ghosa/ and 
Others (1964) 4 SCR 311=AIR 1964 SC 254; Pradyut Bordoloi 
C 
v. Swapan Roy 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 525 = (2001) 2 SCC 
19; and Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India 2006 (2) Suppl. 
SCR 11 o = (2006) 5 sec 266 - relied on. 
Madhukar GE Pankakar v. Jaswant Chobbildas Rajani 
D and Others 1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.