SATRUCHARLA CHANDRASEKHAR RAJU versus VYRICHERLA PRADEEP KUMAR DEV AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 04-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SATRUCHARLA CHANDRASEKHAR RA.JU 
v. 
VYRICHERLA PRADEEP KUMAR DEV AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 4, 1992 
B 
[K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Ac4 1951-Sections 10, l 16A, read with 
Articles 102(1)(a), 191(J)(a), 58(2) of the Constitution of India-Dis-
qualification-Holding an office of profit under Government-Tests of--Ob-
C jects of Articles 102(1)(a), 191 (J)(a)---Cons11Uctioit-Method. 
Representation of the PeopleAc4 1951-8ections 10, 116-A. read with 
Attic/es 58(2), 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India-Post of a teacher in 
ITDA-whether an office of profit under Government. 
D 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-fiections JO, 116-A read with 
Article J91(J)(a) of the Constitution of lnditr-''Officer"-Meaning of-Office 
o/ profiHngredientS-Office of profit and holding a post under the Govern-
ment-Whether same. 
The Project Officer or the lntergrated Tribal Development Agency 
E (ITDA) appointed the appellant as a Single Teacher in a primary school. 
F 
He joined duty in January 1988 and was working in a school or the ITDA. 
On 2.8.88 the Tribal Welfare Officer on Inspection of the school, 
noticed some irregularites. By an order dated 23.8.88, he kept the appel'. 
lant under suspension pending enquiry. 
The appellant questioned the order before the State Administrative 
Tribunal by filing a petition, but his petition was rejected. 
On 26.10.1989 the appellant submitted his resignation to the Project 
G Officer, who was the appointing authority. The Project Officer made an 
endorsement 011 the letter than his resignation could not be accepted In 
view of the pending enquiry. 
Subsequently the election programme for the Legislative Assembly 
was announced and the appellant filed his nomination and contested 
H election from the 8 Nagaru (S.T.) constitutency on 22.11.89. Counting took 
408 
SATRUCHARLA RAJU v. VYR!CHERLA 
409 
place on 26.11.89 and on 27.11.89 the appellant was declared duly elected. A 
The respondent No.1, who was one of the contesting candidates and 
who lost the election, filed an election petition challenging the election of 
the appellant on the ground that the appellant was disqualified as be was 
holding an office of profit under the Government not only on the date or 
filing the nomination but also subsequently In view or the fact that bis B 
resignation was not accepted In view of the pending enquiry. 
The appellant contended before the High Court that the ITDA under 
which be was deemed to be holding an office as a teacher was only a 
registered society under the Societies Registration Act and that the society 
could not be said to be the Government nor was a part or the Government; C 
and that be tendered bis resignation on 26.10.89, which was to be deemed 
to have come Into effect from that date. 
Tbe Issue before the High Court was whether the appellant (respon· 
dent No. 1 before the High court) was holding an office or profit under D 
the State Government on the date of bis nomination and was disqualified 
to contest for the same. 
Th~ High Court, allowing the election petition, held that the appel· 
lant was holding an office of profit and thus Incurred the disqualification. 
This appeal was filed under Section 116·A of the Representation or 
the People Act, 1951 against the High Court's order. 
E 
The appellant contended that the reasons given by the High Court 
were not enough to conclude that the appellant was holding an office or 
profit under the Government; that one of the main tests was whether the F 
Government got power to appoint and to dismiss the appellant from 
service; that the Government did not have the authority to dismiss him 
whereas be was appointed by the Society and the Society could dismiss 
him; that the Society was a registered society and the society was not the 
Government or a part or the Government and thus the appellant was not G 
holding an office or profit under the Government. 
On the question, whether the appellant was holding an office or 
profit under the State Government at the relevant time and was disquallll· 
able under Article 191(1)(a) or the Constlt11.tlon or India for being chosen 
as a member of the Legislative Assembly, allowing the appeal, this Court, H 
A 
B 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS(1992) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
HELD: 1.01. In order to determine whether a person holds an office 
of profit under the Goverment, several tests are ordinarily applied such 
as whether the Government makes the appointment, whet

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