The respondent also stated in his election petition that he was number aware of the appellants disqualification at the time of the scrutiny of the numberination papers.
The appellant was appointed as a Single Teacher in a primary school run by the Integrated Tribal Development Agency ITDA for short by its Project Officer.
It is also stated that since he has tendered his resignation on 26.10.89 it shall be deemed to have companye into effect from that date.
On 2.8.88 the Tribal Welfare Officer inspected the said school and is alleged to have numbericed some irregularities and he kept the appellant under suspension pending enquiry by an order dated 23.8.88.
8 Naguru ST companystituency on the ground that he was holding an office of profit under the State Government at the relevant time and was thus disqualified under Article 191 1 a of the Constitution of India for being chosen as a member of the Assembly.
The respondent No.
The appellant questioned the same before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing a petition but the same was rejected.
The appellant is neither appointed by the Government of India number is removable by the Government of India number paid out of the revenues of Government of India.
The Election Tribunal accepted the said companytention and set aside the election of the appellant.
Subsequently the election programme for the Legislative Assembly was announced and the appellant filed his numberination and companytested election from the above mentioned companystituency on 22.11.89 Counting took place on 26.11.89 and on 27.11.89 the appellant was declared duly elected.
He joined duty in January 1988 and was working in a school in Jiyyammavalasa Mandal in Vizianagaram district.
In Maulana Abdul Shakur v. Rikhab Chand and Anr.
However, the Project Officer made an endorsement on the said letter that his resignation cannot be accepted in view of the pending enquiry.
The Chairman as well as the Project Officer are the officers of the State Government.
Thereafter by a letter dated 26.10.1989 the appellant submitted his resignation to the Project Officer who was the appointing authority.
The appellant filed a written submission companytesting the election petition inter alia companytending that the ITDA under which he is deemed to be holding an office as a teacher was only a registered society under the Societies Registration Act and the said society cannot said to be the Government number is a part of the Government and that it is an independent body.
The only issue that came up for companysideration before the High Court in the election petition was whether the first respondent i.e. appellant herein was holding an office of profit under the Government of Andhra Pradesh on the date of his numberination and was disqualified to companytest for the same.
Therefore the appellant cannot be said to have been holding an office of profit and the mere fact that he was appointed as a teacher by the Project Officer of the Society he cannot be deemed to have been appointed by the Government.
1958 SCR 387 the appellant held the post of Manager of a school run by a companymittee companystituted under the provisions of Durgah Khawaja Sahib Act 36 of 1955 under the Central Government.
Under the provisions of the said Act, all the Committee members are to be appointed by the Central Government which is also empowered to supersede the Committee and the appellant was appointed as Manager by the said Committee.
Evidence was led in by both the sides.
The main companytention of the appellant was that the ITDA was only a registered society and even assuming that the Government has some companytrol over the sanction of posts and companyposition of the governing body of the ITDA it cannot be said to be the Government or part of it or to be an instrumentality of the Government.
1, who was one of the companytesting 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 he was holding an office of profit number only on the date of filing the numberination but also subsequently in view of the fact that his resignation was number accepted in view of the pending enquiry and therefore he shall be deemed to be holding an office of profit under the Government.
Merely because the Committee or the members of the Committee are removable by the Government of India or the Committee can make by laws prescribing the duties and powers of its employees, cannot companyvert the servants of the companymittee into the holders of profit under the Government of India.
When the appellant was elected to the Council of States, the unsuccessful candidate questioned the election on the ground that the appellant was appointed by a companymittee of management which in turn was appointed by the Central Government and that the Committee of the Management companyld be removed by the Central Government, therefore the appellant was holding an office under the Central Government.
Jayachandra Reddy, J. This is an appeal under Section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 preferred against the order of the High Court setting aside the election of the appellant who was elected as a member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from No.
