41 Gunnaur, Village Mirzapur, District Baduan took place in early March, 1985.
I and the votes secured by Respondent No.
The difference between the votes secured by Respondent No.
I Smt.
I should be companysidered as having been materially affected by the wrongful acceptance of the numberination paper of Respondent No.
8 was number holding an office of profit under the State Government and it further held that even if the acceptance of the numberination paper of Respondent No.
The appellant, who was an elector at the said election, filed the Election Petition, out of which this appeal arises, companytending that Respondent No.
The High Court held that the acceptance of the numberination paper of Respondent No.
From the Judgment and order dated 17.1.1986 of the Allahabad High Court Election Tribunal in Election Petition No.
I had been materially affected on the facts and in the H circumstances of the case.
8 secured 3606 votes, which were higher than the difference between the votes secured by Respondent No.
He secured 3606 votes, which were more than the difference between the votes secured by Respondent No.,
The High Court accordingly dismissed the petition.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal.
8 was number illegal as Respondent No.
8 was number holding an office of profit under the State Government and secondly even if the acceptance of the numberination paper of Respondent No.
54 of 1985.
8, who was working as a teacher in the Babu Ram Singh Intermediate College, Baburala, Baduan, was holding an office of profit under the State Government and, therefore, the acceptance of his numberination by the Returning officer was illegal.
1 that the acceptance of the numberination paper of Respondent No.
Respondent No.
It was pleaded by Respondent No.
Respondent No.
16 candidates companytested at the said election.
8 was number illegal since Respondent No.
l and the votes secured by Respondent No.
Respondent No.
The election to the Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Assembly from Constituenc No.
8 was illegal, the election companyld number be set aside since the result of the election was number materially affected thereby.
8 and the election of Respondent No.
1 was liable to be set aside.
8 was illegal, the appellant had number established that the result of the election of Respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2 was in the order of 227 l votes.
The Election Petition was companytested by Respondent No.
2, the election of Respondent No.
Pushpa Devi was declared elected having secured 23006 votes.
1177 NCE of 1986.
8 had secured only about 1 7th of the number of votes polled by the Respondent No.
The next highest number of votes was secured by Shri Naurangi Singh.
He secured 20735 votes.
and by Respondent No.
8 companytesting the election.
In both these situations, the answers are obvious.
8, who was working as a teacher in the Babu Ram Singh Intermediate College, Baburala, Baduan was also one of the candidates in the election.
l and there were 15 candidates excluding respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. This appeal is filed under section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 195 l hereinafter referred A to as the Act by the appellant against the Judgment dated January 17, 1986 of the High Court of Allahabad in Election Petition No.
Qamarrudin and Mrs. Qamarrudin for the Respondents.
Since Respondent No.
K. Garg and Ravi Parkash Gupta for the Appellant.
34 of 1985 dismissing the Election Petition.
