Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The first respondent filed O.P. No. 12/2005 to declare the election of the petitioner void on the ground that the petitioner is an employee working in Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara, run by the Institute of Human Resources Development for Electronics ('IHRDE' for short) which is a corporation fully controlled by the Government of Kerala and hence disqualified to contest the election for Grama Panchayat in view of the provisions contained in Section 30 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It was alleged that in spite of the objection raised by the first respondent the Returning Officer accepted the nomination of the petitioner. It is averred that the petitioner was a permanent employee of the Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara from 1.9.1998 and on the date of nomination as well as on the date of election he was working as such and he was not served with any relieving orders and hence his nomination was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer. It was further alleged that if the nomination of the petitioner was rejected the first respondent who secured the highest votes is eligible to be declared as elected. It was contended that even before the election the first respondent informed the voters of Ward No. VI about the disqualification of the petitioner and they casted their votes fully knowing that the petitioner was not qualified to contest the election. It was further contended that if the petitioner's nomination was rejected the majority of the votes would have been polled in favour of the first respondent/election petitioner.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the finding of the learned Munsiff that there is sufficient pleadings to the effect that the result of the election is materially affected is not correct. It is argued that such an averment is conspicuous by its absence. It is also contended that the other contention raised by the first respondent that since the petitioner is a teacher working in Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara run by the I.H.R.D.E. which is a corporation fully controlled by the State Government was raised in a former Election Petition also. Initially it was held that the teacher working in the Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara is disqualified from contesting in the election. Ultimately the matter reached this Court and this Court in C.R.P. No. 1326/2002 set aside those findings and remanded the matter for reconsideration to the District Court and the District Court in C.M.A. No. 372/2002 held that the I.H.R.D.E. and its employees are not employees in the service of the State. It is argued that in view of that decision the respondent/election petitioner is not entitled to raise such a contention in the Election Petition and those pleadings do not show any cause of action and hence the Election Petition is to be thrown out at the threshold.

8. The next contention raised is that an employee working in a Model Engineering College run by IHRDE is not disqualified to contest for chosen to fill a seat in the Panchayat. It is averred that the petitioner is an employee working in the Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara run by the IHRDE which is a corporation fully controlled by the State Government for the purpose of Section 30 of the Kerala Panchayat Act. It was averred that the petitioner is a permanent employee of the Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara and since the petitioner is an employee working in the Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara run by IHRDE which is a corporation fully controlled by the State Government, he is disqualified from contesting the election and from holding the office of the Panchayat. It was averred that on the date of election itself he was disqualified for holding position as a member of the panchayat. It was also averred that the petitioner was working as a permanent employee from September, 1998 and on the date of nomination he was not served with any relieving order and hence his nomination was improperly accepted. The contention raised by petitioner is that such averments are unclear and vague. It is very pertinent to note that there was no specific denial of those averments in the preliminary objection filed by the petitioner. It was contended that C.R.P. No. 1326/2002 was decided in favour of the petitioner and that fact was suppressed in the O.P. Another contention raised was that on remand the District Court in C.M.A. No. 372/2002 held that the IHRDE and its employees are not employees in the service of the State.

The learned District Judge considered the matter on merits and found that a person working in the IHRDE is not a Government servant. It was specifically found that-

Hence I find that the employees of Model Engineering college run by IHRDE are not employees in the service of the State.

13. In the present Election Petition the case put forward by the first respondent is entirely different. In paragraph 3 of the Election Petition it was contended that-

The 1st (first) respondent is an employee working in the Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara run by the Institute of Human Resources Development for Electronics (IHRDE in short), which is a Corporation fully controlled by the State Government for the purpose of Section 30 (Thirty) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.