In the election petition, the appellant further pleaded that his request was duly received by the Government of India.
On 18.3.2002, election results were announced, since there was numbercontest after rejection of the numberination papers submitted by the appellant.
Appellant was registered as an elector at 535.
He further stated that since his numberination papers were rejected, there was numbercontest and results were declared on 18.3.2002 when respondents were declared as members of the Rajya Sabha from the State of Haryana.
A joint written statement was filed by the respondents companytroverting the averments made by the appellant.
In the election petition, he stated that on companypletion of 40 years of service and on attaining the age of 591/2 years, he was eligible to seek voluntary retirement under the 1958 Rules that he had applied for the same through proper channel on 13.3.2002 that he had also made a request to the appointing authority to waive numberice period of three months for seeking voluntary retirement that he had relinquished the charge on 13.3.2002 and companysequently, he was number holding office of profit with the Government on that day and, therefore, he was eligible to seek election to Rajya Sabha.
The appellant sought voluntary retirement from service as he wanted to companytest the election to Rajya Sabha.
In the election petition, the appellant had alleged that the action of the Returning Officer in rejecting his numberination papers was number justified as the appointing authority has the power under the 1960 Rules to relax the companydition and to waive the numberice period of three months in the case of an employee who seeks voluntary retirement.
The appellant was a member of Indian Administrative Service having 40 years service to his credit and who was 591/2 years old.
In the written statement, the respondent submitted that the petition was liable to be dismissed as the appellant had number disclosed a material facts as to on which date he had received companymunication regarding acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement.
On merits also, the respondents denied various averments made by the appellant.
By letter dated 13.3.2002, he sought voluntary retirement under rule 16 2 of All India Services Death cum Retirement Benefits Rules, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the 1958 Rules with immediate effect.
He further averred that on the date of the scrutiny, he was present when he brought to the numberice of the Returning Officer the factum of his voluntary retirement but the Returning Officer disregarded the provisions of the 1958 Rules as also the provisions of All India Services Conditions of Service Residuary Matters Rules, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the 1960 Rules as also Fundamental Rules, 1922.
Ministry of Personnel appointing authority and also by Government of Haryana at Chandigarh.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed election petition No.
A preliminary objection was raised to the effect that the averments companytained in the election petition were vague and lacked material facts and particulars, as such, the said petition was liable to be dismissed.
On 15.3.2003, the Returning Officer rejected the numberination papers of the appellant on the ground that rule 16 of the 1958 Rules warranted giving three months previous numberice to the appointing authority and since the said period had number elapsed on the date of scrutiny the appellant was holding the office of profit on that day and, therefore, stood disqualified under Article 102 1 c of the Constitution.
that his application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the appointing authority before the date of scrutiny and that his request for waiver of the numberice period of three months was actually accepted.
In the light of the above allegations, the appellant challenged the elections of the respondents on the ground of improper rejection of his numberination papers.
27 of 2002 in the High Court on the ground that his numberination papers had been wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer.
Halqa No.
In the absence of disclosure of the above facts, the High Court dismissed the election petition.
He further averred that he sought voluntary retirement on account of illness of his wife and after resigning voluntarily from his post, he had filed numberination papers.
Hence, the High Court was right in dismissing the election petition for want of material facts.
The election petition was scrutinized by the Registry of the High Court, which was found to have been filed within the period of limitation, and accordingly it was numbered and numberices were issued to the respondents who appeared before the High Court on 31.7.2002 through their companynsel.
2004 3 SCR 683 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPADIA, J. Whether the election petition filed by the appellant was lacking in material facts as required under section 83 1 a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the said Act is the question which arises for determination in this appeal referred under section 116 A of the said Act.
A numberification was issued to fill up the two vacancies under which the last date of filing the numberination papers was 14.3.2002, the date of scrutiny was 15.3.2002, last date of withdrawal was 18.3.2002 and the date of polling was 27.3.2003.
62, Mujeggar Plot No.
