MADHUKER G. E. PANKAKAR versus JASWANT CHOBBILDAS RAJANI & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 832 · Decided: 23-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
832 
MADHUKER G. E. PANKAKAR 
1'. 
JASWANT CHOBBILDAS RAJAN! & ORS. 
March 23, 1976 
[V. R, KRISHNA !YER AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Municipalities Act, !965-S. !6(1)(g)-Holding office of pro-
fit-Meaning of-Private medical practitioner on the panel of doctors under 
Employees State Insurance Scheme-If holding office of profit. 
To provide medical facilities to the workers in factories a statutory body 
called the Employees State Insurance Co;rIJoration has been establish~d by an 
Act of Parliament. Under the Act financial resources of the Corporation come 
from contributions and other monies specified in the Act and an Employees 
State Insurance Fund had been created. The State Government, to which an 
obligation to provide medical treatment for insured persons had been entrusted, 
may employ private medical practitioners who run clinics as doctors uQder 
the scheme. For inclusion of a name in the medical list of insurance medical 
practitioners a doctor has to apply to the Administrative Medical Officer. 
His 
application is considered by an allocation committee which recommends his 
name to the Director, Employees State Insurance Scheme and ultimately on 
approval by the Surgeon General, his name is included in the medical list. The 
doctor whose name is included in the medical list has to abide by the duties 
and conditions prescribed, is under the control of the Medical Services Com~ 
mittee and may even be removed or resign from the panel. 
The appellant, who was a private medical practitioner and whose name was 
included in the panel of doctors maintained by the Corporation and the respon-
dent, were contestants in an election for the presidentship of a municipal coun-
cil. At the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers no objection was raised 
to the appellant's nomination and in the election that ensued the appellant 
was declared elected. 
The respondent challenged the election on the ground 
that the appellant was disqualified under s. 16(1 )(g) of the 
Maharashtra 
Municipalities Act, 1965 which debars a person who holds an office of profit 
under Government from becoming a councillor, 
because on the 
date of 
nomination he was holding an office of profit under the Government 
by reason of his being a panel doctor under the Employees State Insurance 
Scheme. Between the date of nomination and the date of election. however, 
the appellant had resigned from the scheme. The election tribunal allowed 
the respondent's petition and declared the appellants' election void. At the 
same time the respondent was declared as the President. 
On appeal it was contended that a doctor on the medical list prepared by 
the Surgeon General of the State does not hold an office of profit within the 
meaning of s. !6(!)(g) of the Act. 
Allov.·ing the appeal, 
HELD : (!) The legislative end for disqualifying holders of office of pro-
fit under Government from seeking elective offices is to avoid the conflict bet-
ween duty and interest, to cut out the misuse of official position, to advance 
private benefit and to avert the likelihood of influencing Government to pro-
mote personal advantage. At the same time the Constitution mandates the 
State to undertake multiform public welfare and socio-economic activities 
involving technical persons, welfare workers and lay people on a massive scale 
so that participatory government may prove a progressive reality. 
Therefore 
experts may have to be invited into local bodies, legislatures and the like pnli-
tical and administrative organs based on elections. [842 E-G] 
(2) ,a) The appellant suffered no disqualification on the score of holding 
an office of profit under Government. The legal provisions under the Act and 
the rules make of an insurance medical practitioner a category different from 
one who runs a private clinic and enters into contractual terms for treatment 
of patien'ts sent by Government, nor is he a full fledged government servant. 
' 
' 
./ 
I 
' 
MADHUKER v. J. c. RAJAN! (Krishna lyer, !.) 
833 
He is a tertium quid. [842-A] 
(b) The doctor under the scheme has obligations of a statutory sa~our. He 
is appointed on his application which is processed by the appropnate body, 
removed if found wanting obliged to discharge 
duties·, make 
some reports 
and subject himself to certain discipline while on the panel. [844 F-G] 
A 
(3) (a) For holding an office of profit under Goverimwnt . one need not be 
in the service of Government a

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