Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the petition, is briefly:-

Nomination papers of the petitioner, respondent-2, respondent-3 and respondent-4 for the election to be held on 22-6-1986 respecting the membership of the Karnataka Legislative Council from the Karnataka South-West Graduates Constituency were duly filed before respondent-1, the Returning Officer of that election. One V. Dhananjaya Kumar, on his own behalf and as the authorised agent of the petitioner, filed an objection statement before the Returning Officer objecting to the acceptance of the nomination of respondent-2, by pleading that he (respondent-2) was disqualified under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India for being chosen as a Member of the Karnataka Legislative Council since the post of an Assistant Professor in English held by him in the National Institute of Engineering, Mysore ("the N.I.E.,"), was an office of profit under the Karnataka State Government. But, the Returning Officer, who found no merit in that objection, accepted the nomination of respondent-2, along with the nominations of the petitioner, respondent-3 and respondent-4 and declared all of them to be the contesting candidates in the said election. Thereafter, the election among those contesting candidates being held, counting of valid votes cast in favour of each of them was done. On such counting of votes, respondent-2, who was found to have secured highest number of valid votes among the contesting candidates, was, by the declaration dated 23-6-1986 of the Returning Officer declared as the returned candidate duly elected to fill the seat for which election was held. According to the petitioner, the acceptance by the Returning Officer (respondent-1) of the nomination of respondent-2, who was disqualified under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution for being chosen as a Member of the Karnataka Lagislative Council because of the post of an Assistant Professor in English held by him in the N.I.E., an office of profit under the Karnataka State Government, being improper, has materially affected the result of his election. The averments made in the petition in support of the plea that respondent-2 held an office of profit under the Karnataka State Government, are (I) that the N.I.E. College in which respondent-2 held the post of Assistant Professor in English being an instrumentality of a State, he must be held to be holding an office of profit under the State; and (II) that respondent-2, Assistant Professor in English in the N.I.E. College - a recipient of aid from the State Government, who was receiving his entire salary from the State Government directly, paid out of its consolidated fund, has to be regarded as a person holding an office of profit under the Karnataka State Government. The Election Petition had been, therefore, filed for obtaining a declaration that the election of respondent-2 was void and a further declaration that the petitioner was duly elected as a member in the place of respondent-2.

Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution, which bears on the point, reads:

"191(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State -
(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder,"

As there are decided cases of our Supreme Court, which refer to the factors decisive in finding whether a post held by a person in an institution is an office of profit under a Government as would disqualify him for being chosen as, or for being, a member of either State Legislature under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution or Parliament under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution, I shall refer to them so as to get at those decisive factors needed in finding whether the post held by respondent-2 in the N.I.E. College of the N.I.E. Society is an office of profit under the Karnataka Government which disqualified him for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Karnataka State Legislative Council under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution.

"The object of enacting Article 191(1)(a) is plain. A person who is elected to a Legislature should be free to carry on his duties fearlessly without being subjected to any kind of Governmental pressure. If such a person is holding an office which brings his remuneration and the Government has a voice in his continuance in that office, there is every likelihood of such person succumbing to the wishes of Government. Article 191(1)(a) is intended to eliminate the possibility of a conflict between duty and interest and to maintain the purity of the Legislatures."

If the salient features of the N.I.E. College, which I have enumerated earlier, are seen in the light of the aforesaid factors, which should weigh with the Court in determining whether an office of profit held by a person in an Institution is or is not an office of profit under the State Government bearing in mind the aforesaid object lying behind the disqualification imposed by Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution, I am impelled to take the view that the post held by respondent-2 in the N.I.E. College as an Assistant Professor in English is not an office of profit under the State Government which would disqualify him for being chosen as, or for being, a Member of the Karnataka Legislative Council under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution.