RAJENDER KUMARI Vs. VIJAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this Election Petition the election of Sri Vijai Singh Rana respondent from 356 Dayalbagh Legislative Assembly Constituency of District Agra, held during March, 1985, General Elections to the U.P. Legislative Assembly, has been challenged. It is contended that Sri Rana filed his nomination paper on 5-2-85 and the polling took place on 5-3-85 counting was made next day when the Returning Officer declared Sri Rana elected as a member of the U.P. Legislative Assembly from 356, Dayalbagh Legislative Constituency in the district of Agra. It is contended that the election was void because Sri Rana was holding an office of profit under the Government of Uttar Pradesh and was, therefore, disqualified under Art.191(1)(a) of the Constitution and because the result of the election, in so far as it relates to respondent Sri Rana, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of his nomination for this Constituency. In para 7 and onwards a concise statement of facts has been given. It is contended that respondent Sri Rana was Principal of Maharaja Surajmal Higher Secondary School, Agra. This Institution was a Government aided Institution, receiving grants for its maintenance from the Government and, the State Government was exercising financial control over it in view of the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921; U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971; U.P. Education Code and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act of 1982. The respondent was getting his salary from the Government and was an employee of the Government and in that capacity had drawn salary up to February, 1985. The liability of the State Government to pay salary to the teachers including the respondent was a statutory. Director of Education also exercises financial and other administrative control over the management of the Higher Secondary Schools under the Intermediate Education Act and the Act also empowers the State Government to take over the management of the School. It was, therefore, contended that the election of the respondent was thus void in view of Ss.100(1)(a) and 100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and was liable to be set aside.

(2.) Contest was put forth on behalf of Sri Rana through an application purporting to be under O.VI, R.16, C.P.C. read with S.86(1) of the Representation of the People Act and O.VII, R.11 read with S.151, C.P.C. It was contended that paras 7 to 20 of the Election Petition did not contain concise statement of material facts in respect of the grounds taken. They were wholly vague and vexatious and did not disclose any cause of action as contemplated under S.83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act and O.VI, R.2 of the Civil P.C. These paragraphs should, therefore, be deleted and then there will be nothing left in the Election Petition, which will thus be liable to be dismissed.

(3.) A perusal of the Election Petition, of which a summary has been given by me in the beginning of this judgement, will clearly show that the election of Sri Rana has been challenged only on one ground and it is that he was serving as Principal of Maharaja Surajmal Higher Secondary School, Agra which was a Government aided Institution and which used to receive grants from the Government for its maintenance and thus he will be deemed to be a person holding an office of profit under the Government and would, therefore, be debarred from standing as a candidate for the election. The question, therefore, for decision that will arise would be whether Sri Vijai Singh Rana, the respondent, in view of his being Principal in a recognised school getting grant-in-aid from the Government, will be deemed to be holding an office of profit under the Government on the date of nomination for election and whether the result of the election so far as it concerns Sri Rana, the returned candidate, will be deemed to have been materially affected on account of his nomination having been accepted. The second question does not call for much of argument since it is Sri. Rana who is the victorious candidate and if it is ultimately held that his nomination was not capable of being accepted and has yet been accepted, it will naturally mean that the acceptance has materially affected the result of the election so far as the returned candidate is concerned. Therefore, the first question will be material for decision in this case.