Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 455 (ALL)

B. C. Saxena v. Hari Krishna Awasthi

1986-07-21

PARMESHVVAR DAYAL

body1986
JUDGMENT Parmeshvvar Dayal, J. - This is an Election Petition, filed by Sri B. C. Saxena, challenging the validity of the election of the respondent No. 1, Dr. Hari Krishna Awasthi alias Dr. H.K. Awasthi from the Lucknow Division Graduates Constituency. 2. A notice under Rule 3 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 was published on 29-3-1984 by the respondent No. 2 for an election to a Member to the U.P. Legislative Council from the aforesaid Constituency. The nomination papers were to be filed up to 5-4-1984. The scrutiny took place on 6-4-1984. The election was held on 29-4-1984. The petitioner B. C. Saxena happened to be a graduate and was serving as a teacher in the Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow since the year 1953. One Brij Bahadur Saxena filed objections against the nomination papers of the petitioner alleging that the petitioners, being a teacher in Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow, was holding an office of profit under the Government of State and was, therefore, disqualified for being elected as a Member of the Legislative Council of the U.P. State. The respondent No. 2. the Returning Officer, rejected the petitioner's nomination on the ground that he was holding an office of profit- 3. The petitioner claimed that the Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow was a minority institution, recognised by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, for purposes of Article 30 of the Constitution of India and that it was governed by Board of Governors known as Committee of Management which was the final authority for making appointments and for determining any appointment in the institution. He further claimed that it was only in the Lucknow Division that the nomination papers of the teachers of the privately managed institution were rejected on the ground that the teachers held office of profit under the State Government. 4. The respondent No. 1 Dr. Hari Krishana Awasthi filed written statement contending that the petitioner held an office of profit and was disqualified for being elected to the Legislative Council. 5. The petitioner filed a replication. 6. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the Lucknow Christian Degree College is a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution as alleged in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Election petition ? 5. The petitioner filed a replication. 6. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the Lucknow Christian Degree College is a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution as alleged in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Election petition ? (2) Whether as Lecturer of the aforesaid College, the petitioner can be said to hold an office of profit under the State Government of Uttar Pradesh within the contemplation of Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India ? (3) Whether the State Government exercises control over the appointment, dismissal and termination of teachers of the aforesaid College ? If so, its effect ? (4) Whether the nomination paper of the petitioner was wrongly rejected ? If so, its effect ? (5) Whether the election petition is beyond limitation as alleged in paragraph 43 of the written statement ? (6) Whether the Election Petition has not been verified in accordance with law ? (7) Whether the election of respondent No. 1 is void ? (8) To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled ? 7. The petitioner examined 10 witnesses. P.W. 1 Dr. Shanti Prakash Tewarson has been the Principal of the Lucknow Christian Degree College, Lucknow. He stated on the point that the Lucknow Christian Degree College, Lucknow is managed and controlled by the Methodist Church through the Board of Governors of the Lucknow Christian College. 7. The petitioner examined 10 witnesses. P.W. 1 Dr. Shanti Prakash Tewarson has been the Principal of the Lucknow Christian Degree College, Lucknow. He stated on the point that the Lucknow Christian Degree College, Lucknow is managed and controlled by the Methodist Church through the Board of Governors of the Lucknow Christian College. P.W. 2 Ganpat Rai Srivastava stated on the point that the said College was treated as an Associated College of the Lucknow University and was treated as a minority institution ; P.W. 3, B. M. Singh has been the Registrar of the Lucknow University who stated that the University had an academic control over the said College for preparing Syllabus and for conducting examinations ; P.W. 4, Girish Chandra Srivastava has been an Assistant in the District Election Office, Lucknow who stated about the filing of the nomination papers ; P.W. 5 Baijnath has been an Accountant of the office of the said College who stated about the disbursement of the salary of the teachers : P.W. 6 Prahlad Prasad has been a Senior Assistant of the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow who stated that the salary disbursement account sheets of the Lucknow Christian College were received in his office ; P.W. 7 S. S. Tandon has been the Deputy Secretary in the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, Allahabad who stated that the said College has been a Minority Institution ; P.W. 8 Jagdamba Bux Singh has been a Lecturer in the Economics Department of Queens' Anglo Sanskrit Inter College, Lucknow who also had submitted his nomination papers for election to the said seat from the Graduates Constituency as well as for Lok Sabha and he stated that his nomination paper for Lok Sabha was accepted by the Returning Officer while his nomination paper for the disputed Graduates Constituency was rejected ; P.W. 9, B. C. Saxena has been the petitioner himself who stated in support of his petition ; and the P.W. 10 Bhagwati Saran Srivastava has been an Investigator in the office of the Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits, and he stated that the said College was registered under the name and style of Board of Trustees, Centinial High School, Lucknow in the year 1885 and that the same was styled as Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow subsequently. 8. The respondent no. 1 examined 3 witnesses. 8. The respondent no. 1 examined 3 witnesses. The P.W. 1 Vijai Shanker Shukla has been the Kshettriya Uccha Shiksha Adhikari, Lucknow who produced certain G. Os. ; R. W. 2 Bhanu Prakash has been the Lekha Adhikari of District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow who produced the extracts of the accounts pertaining to Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow and maintained in his office ; and R. W. 3 Umesh Kumar has been an Upper Division Assistant of the U.P. Secretariat who produced 16 G. Os. Findings Issue No. 1. 9. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been a teacher in the Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow. He claimed that the said Institution was a Minority Institution as contemplated by Article 30 of the Constitution of India. He pleaded it to be a Minority Institution in Para 3 of his petition, the correctness of which has been denied in Para 4 of the written statement, but nothing has been pleaded regarding the same in the additional pleas of the written statement. Article 30 of the Constitution of the India reads as follows : "Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. - (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. (1-A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause. (2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language." 10. In view of the provisions of Article 30, the minorities have a right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice and the State Government has been prohibited from discriminating against such institutions in matters of granting aid. 11. The respondent No. 1 claimed on the basis of the various G. 0s., issued by the State Government, that the Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow is under the control of the State Government by virtue of the U.P. Universities Act and the statutes framed thereunder. 11. The respondent No. 1 claimed on the basis of the various G. 0s., issued by the State Government, that the Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow is under the control of the State Government by virtue of the U.P. Universities Act and the statutes framed thereunder. It is established from the statements of P.W. 1 Dr. Shanti Prakash Tewarson, P.W. 2 Ganpat Rai Srivastava, P.W. 3 B. M. Singh, P.W. 7 S. S. Tandon and the P.W. 9 B. C. Saxena that the Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow has been a minority institution and it was so treated by the Lucknow University as well as by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, Allahabad, P.W. 10 Bhagwati Saran Srivastava proved that the said College was a registered body. R. W. 1 Vijai Shanker admitted that as the name goes, this College appeared to be a minority institution. It is further established that it is governed by the Board of Governors of this institution. The statements of witnesses find corroboration from the documentary evidence vide Exts. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 20 to 23 and 28. As such, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner. Issues No. 2, 3, 4 and 7 12. These issues are inter-connected and they can be conveniently disposed of together. 13. The petitioner has been a teacher of the Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow which is a minority institution and which is managed by its Board of Governors. It received grant-in-aid. P.W. 6 P. P. Ojha stated that the grant-in-aid is given to this institution in a year in four instalments. But this giving of grant-in-aid did not change the nature of the institution as contemplated by Article 30(2) of the Constitution of India, P.W. 1 Dr. S.P. Tewarson stated that the salary of the teachers of this institution is paid by the Management of this institution and the State Government gives the grant-in-aid up to the difference between the amount of fee realised and the expenses. However, it is not disputed that the sanction of the Director of Education is required for payment of the salary of teachers covered under the Salary Disbursement Act. The Management of this institution has been paying salary to its teachers since before the enforcement of the U.P. Universities Act, 1974. It has been established from the various G.Os. However, it is not disputed that the sanction of the Director of Education is required for payment of the salary of teachers covered under the Salary Disbursement Act. The Management of this institution has been paying salary to its teachers since before the enforcement of the U.P. Universities Act, 1974. It has been established from the various G.Os. on record that recognition is given under Sections 7(2), 7(11), 21(1) (ix), (x), (xvii) of the U.P. State Universities Act and the Universities Statutes Nos. 13.11 and 13-34. A department is created vide Exts. A-22 dated 14-3-1984. The posts are created under Sections 21, 60, 60-A of the U.P.- State Universities Act vide Exts. R-6, R-7. A-22 and A-23. The qualifications are laid down under the statutes of the Lucknow University Statutes. Appointments arc approved under Section 31 of the State Universities Act and they are made under Section 12 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission. The Government servants are sent as teachers on deputation to the various colleges. The pay scales are laid down under the Universities Act by the Government. Provisions for pay scales, selection grade, ad hoc D. A., D. A., House Rent Allowance, Bonus pension, pension relief, family pension relief, relief under triple benefit scheme, relief for pensioners and Group Insurance are all made by the Government by means of various G.Os. vide Exts. R-l to R-4, A-15 to A-17, R-5, A-18, A-19, A-21, R-8, A-l 1, A-20, R-9, R-10, R-12 and A-26 to A-30. All this is admitted to the P.W. 9 B. C. Saxena also. It is the duty of the State Government to see that the aforesaid amounts are paid, for which the respondent relied on the judgment of Writ Petition No. 228 of 1984 - Committee of Management v. District Inspector of Schools, Sultanpur. 14. The hours of working are also laid down vide Exts. R-6, R-7 and A-25 together with the nature of work vide Exts. A-7 and A-25. The Code of Conduct is provided in the Universities Statutes. The disciplinary control is exercised under the U.P. State Universities Act. Whenever any punishment is inflicted, it has to be approved. The development grant is given under G.O. vide Exts. A-24. Directions arc given by the Governor of the State from time to time. It is in evidence vide Exts. The Code of Conduct is provided in the Universities Statutes. The disciplinary control is exercised under the U.P. State Universities Act. Whenever any punishment is inflicted, it has to be approved. The development grant is given under G.O. vide Exts. A-24. Directions arc given by the Governor of the State from time to time. It is in evidence vide Exts. A-13 and A-14 that the Government's contribution towards the salary, pension and gratuity etc. for the teachers of this College is a major contribution. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the Members of the Legislature have an influence in decision making process of the Government including the Education Department and that the State Government is the controlling authority. 15. But all the aforesaid G.Os. show that the Government has powers of regulating the working of the College in question which is a minority institution and the State Government has no right to discriminate for granting aids as contemplated by Article 30(2) of the Constitution of India. Section"2-A of the U.P. Universities (Re-enactment and Amendment) Act, 1974 defines an Associated College as any institution recognised by the University and authorised under the provisions of the Act and the statutes of the University to provide for the teaching necessary for admission to a degree of University. It is only recognition by the University and authorisation under the Act and the recognition by the University for teaching purposes. Section 13 of the Act clearly lays down that the Vice Chancellor of the University has only a power of general supervision and Control over an Associated College which power can be called as a regulatory measure. It reads as follows : "Section 30(1 )(a). - Exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the University including the constituent colleges and the Institutes maintained by the University and its affiliated and associated colleges." 16. The statute 17.10 framed under the U.P. Universities (Reenactment and Amendment) Act, 1974 cuts at the very root of the dispute. It clearly lays down that a teacher of an associated college can be elected and nominated to the Parliament or Legislature, meaning thereby a Legislative Council also. The statute 17.10 framed under the U.P. Universities (Reenactment and Amendment) Act, 1974 cuts at the very root of the dispute. It clearly lays down that a teacher of an associated college can be elected and nominated to the Parliament or Legislature, meaning thereby a Legislative Council also. It reads as follows : (i) "a teacher of an associated college who is a member of Parliament or State Legislature shall not, throughout the term of his membership hold any administrative or remunerative office in the college or in the University with which such college is associated. (ii) if a teacher of an associated college is holding any administrative or remunerative office in the college or in the University to which such college is associated, from before the date of his election or nomination as a Member of the Parliament or the State Legislature, then he shall cease to hold such office with effect from the date of such election or nomination or with effect from the commencement of these Statutes whichever is later ; (iii) a teacher of an associated college who is elected or nominated to the Parliament or the State Legislature shall not be required to resign or to take leave from such college for the duration of his membership or, except as provided by Statute 17.11 for attending the meetings of any House of Committee thereof." 17. It is thus apparent from clause 3 of the Statute 17.10 that a teacher of an associated college is not required to even resign from his post after being elected or nominated to the Parliament or State Legislature. The proviso to Statute 17.11 says that where a teacher of a college is not so available because of the session of the Parliament or the State Legislature, he shall be treated on such leave as may be due to him and if no leave is due then on leave without pay. This proviso further clarifies that a teacher of an affiliated college can be elected or nominated as a Member of a Parliament or State Legislature and he need not resign even after such election or nomination as the case may be. 18. An associated college may be such as defined by the statutes as contemplated by Section 38(2) of the Act. 18. An associated college may be such as defined by the statutes as contemplated by Section 38(2) of the Act. Section 38(5) lays down that except as provided by the Act, the Management of an associated college shall be free to manage and control the affairs of tin college and be responsible for its maintenance and up-keep and that the Principal of every such college shall be responsible for the discipline of its students and for the superintendence and control over its staff. Section 31(1) lays down that a teacher of an affiliated college also shall be appointed by the Management of the affiliated or associated college on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. In this very section, a distinction has been made between an associated college and a college maintained by the State Government. The order of confirmation of a teacher on expiry of the period of probation is passed by the Management. 19. A minority institution is given still more freedom and privileges under the T.J.P. Universities Act and under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Under Section 50 of the Universities Act, it has been specifically laid down that the provisions of Section 58 shall not apply to a College, established and administered by minority, referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Section 58 deals with the appointment of an authorised controller. The authorised controller is appointed only when the management of a college suffers from irregularities. 20. As about the appointment of a teacher of an affiliated college, the norms have been laid down regarding the formation of the Selection Committee. One of the members of the Selection Committee is Head of the Department of the subject concerned from the institution. Sub-section 4(c) of Section 31 relates to the formation of the Selection Committee for appointment of a Principal of an affiliated or an associated college, other than a college maintained by the State Government. The second Proviso to the same specifically lays down that in the case of colleges, established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the Experts shall be nominated by the Management from out of a panel of 5 experts suggested by the Management and approved by the Vice-Chancellor. The second Proviso to the same specifically lays down that in the case of colleges, established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the Experts shall be nominated by the Management from out of a panel of 5 experts suggested by the Management and approved by the Vice-Chancellor. The third Proviso lays down that a Dean or Professor of the subject concerned shall also be nominated as the member of the Selection Committee. The sub-section 4(d) of Section 31 provides the norms for the formation of the Selection Committee for the appointment of the teachers of the affiliated or associated colleges. The second Proviso lays down that in the case of colleges, established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the Experts shall be nominated by the Management from out of a panel of 5 experts suggested by the Management and approved by the Vice Chancellor. Therefore, a minority institution has been given a special status and freedom. 21. Sub-section 8(b) of Section 31 further clarifies that in the case of appointment of a teacher of an affiliated or associated college if the Management does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, the Management shall refer the mutter to the Vice-Chancellor along with the reasons of such disagreement and his decision shall be final. The Proviso further lays down that in the case of appointment of a teacher of an affiliated or associated college, established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, if the Management dose not agree with the recommendation made by a Selection Committee, the Management shall gave the right to appoint another Selection Committee and the decision 0f that Committee shall be final. This Proviso clearly confers sweeping powers on the Management of a minority institution to make appointments of teachers of its institution and, on this basis, it can very safely be said t hat the University and the Government have only regulatory powers over a teacher of a minority institution. 22. Further, Section 31(12) lays down that the Management, with the prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor, may appoint on deputation on the post of a teacher any Government servant who possesses the qualification prescribed for the post. 22. Further, Section 31(12) lays down that the Management, with the prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor, may appoint on deputation on the post of a teacher any Government servant who possesses the qualification prescribed for the post. In view of Section 35(1) every teacher in an associated college is appointed on a written contract containing terms and conditions of service. This contract takes place between the appointee and the management. In the case of contract between these two parties, the State Government or the Central Government could have no powers over that teacher. The relationship between the appointee and the Management is that of a master and servant as held in the case of Dr. Laxmi Narain v. Vaish College, Shamli, 1976 (2) SCC 58 . 23. The Proviso to Section 35(2) again distinguishes a minority institution by laying down that in the case of a college, established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the decision of the Management, dismissing, removing or reducing in rank or punishing a teacher in any other manner shall, before it is communicated to him, be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and shall not take effect unless it has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor. Thus, the Vice-Chancellor also has limited powers for looking into the procedure that if the procedure prescribed in this behalf has been followed or not and, in case of his dissatisfaction, the decision of the Management shall not be given effect to, meaning thereby that the Management can further take steps by adopting the procedure to the satisfaction of the Vice-Chancellor. 24. The responsibility of the disbursement of salary is that of the Management of an affiliated or associated college. Under Chapter 11-A of the U.P. Universities Act, the payment of salary is the liability of the State Government. But this provision applies to the teachers, covered by the Salary Disbursement Scheme. Teachers in the Degree Colleges are not entitled to the benefit of this provision for 3 years from the date of recognition. The teachers in the newel created institutions are paid salary by their management. Their posts are created by the Management. But this provision applies to the teachers, covered by the Salary Disbursement Scheme. Teachers in the Degree Colleges are not entitled to the benefit of this provision for 3 years from the date of recognition. The teachers in the newel created institutions are paid salary by their management. Their posts are created by the Management. This provision becomes effective normally after 3 years when the College is eligible for grants-jo-aid Under Section 60-P of the Act, the management of every college has to open an account in a Scheduled Bank or Post Office for joint operation by the representative of the Management and the Deputy Director or such other officers who might be authorised in this behalf. The fee realised from the students is also deposited in this account called "Salary Payment Account". Section 60-E (1) lays down that the State will be liable for payment of the salary of the teachers and employees due in respect of any period after March 31, 1975, but Section 60-E(2) clarified that the State Government may recover any amount in respect of which any liability is incurred by it under sub-section (1) by attachment of the income from the property belonging to or vested in the college as if that amount were an arrear of land revenue due from such college. Section 60-F provides for the penalty to the Management in case of non-compliance. Therefore, the ultimate liability of payment of salary under the new provision is also that of the Management since the State Government has a right to recover the amount which it might pay, and the Management may be punished for the same. 25. The selection grade and the time bound grade can be given to a teacher only after the approval of the Management. 26. It is thus evident from the evidence on record that even the Vice-Chancellor of the Lucknow University has little control over the affairs of the Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow what to say of the State Government. The petitioner is an employee of the Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow which is a minority institution and its affairs are managed by its Board of Governors and not by the State Government. 27. The petitioner relied on the judgment of Civil Appeal No. 174 (NCE) of 1984 - Shri Ashok Kumar v. Ajay Biswas and others. The petitioner is an employee of the Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow which is a minority institution and its affairs are managed by its Board of Governors and not by the State Government. 27. The petitioner relied on the judgment of Civil Appeal No. 174 (NCE) of 1984 - Shri Ashok Kumar v. Ajay Biswas and others. The respondent Sri Ajay Biswas in that case was an Accountant ln charge of Agartalla Municipality and the question before the Supreme Court was that if the job of the respondent Ajay Biswas was within the meaning of Article 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. The Agartalla Municipality consisted of elected Commissioners and the State Government had power to remove an elected Commissioner on certain grounds set out in Section 62 of the Municipal Act. Article 102 reads as follows : - "102 Disqualification for membership. - (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament - (a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder". In that appeal, the cases discussed were : - (1) D.R. Gurushantappa v. Abdul Kuddus Anwar and others, 1969 (3) SCR 425 ; (2) Rurugovindo v. Shankar Prasad Ghoshal, 1964 (4) SCR 311 . ; (3) Maulana Abdul's case, 1958 SCR 387 ; (4) Surya Kant's case, 1975 (3) SCR 909 .; (5) Madhukar's case, 1976 (3) SCR 832 . ; (6) Bihari Lal Dobray v. Roshan Lal Dobray, 1984 (1) SCC 517. 28. It was held : "After reviewing various cases and the provisions of the various sections of the U.P. Universities Act 1974, specially in view of Section 13 of the Act, this Court held in the last mentioned case that the Management of control was such that U.P. Education Board was an authority which was run by the Government and every employee of the Board was holding an office of profit under the Sate government. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and Sections 4, 6, 7, 13 and 19 all of which have been set out in extensor in that decision make that decision irresistible." It was further held that for determination of the question whether a person holds an office of profit under the Government each case must be measured and judged in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act and to make in all cases employees of local authorities subject to the control of Government and to treat them as holders of office of profit under the Government would be to obliterate the specific differentiation made under Article 58(2) and Article 102(l)(a) of the Constitution and to extend the disqualification under Article 58(2) to one under Article 102(l)(a) to an extent not warranted by the language of the Article. 29. The case of Sarnairt Singh v. Smt. Pushpa Devi and others, came up before this Court in Election Petition No. 54 of 1985. The respondent No. 1 Smt. Pushpa Devi was declared elected to State Legislative Assembly from Constituency No. 41 Gunnaur village Mirzapur, district Buduan having secured 23006 votes with a margin of 2271 votes against the respondent No. 2. The election was challenged by an elector named Sarnam Singh on the ground that the respondent No.8 who had contested that election was a teacher of an Intermediate College Baburala, Budaun and held an office of profit under the State Government and, as' such, he was disqualified from seeking election of the State Legislative Assembly. The main issue in that case was that if a teacher of an Intermediate College, receiving grant-in-aid from the government, held an office of profit under the State Government within the meaning of Article 191(1) of the Constitution of India. In that case, the following case-laws was considered and discussed. (1) Mahadeo v. Shantibhai aud others, (1968) 40, ELR 81 (SC) ; (2) Smt. Kama Kathuria v. Nanak Chand Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 694 . ; (3) Ravanna Subama v. G. S. Kangerappa, AIR 1954 SC 653 . ; (4) Karbhari Bhimaji Rohamare v. Slianker Deo Genuji Kolha, AIR 1975 SC 575 . ; (5) Divya Prakash v. Kidter Chand Rana and others, AIR 1975 SC 1067 . ; (6) Abdul Shakoor v. Rikhab Chand and others, AIR 1958 SC 52 . ; (3) Ravanna Subama v. G. S. Kangerappa, AIR 1954 SC 653 . ; (4) Karbhari Bhimaji Rohamare v. Slianker Deo Genuji Kolha, AIR 1975 SC 575 . ; (5) Divya Prakash v. Kidter Chand Rana and others, AIR 1975 SC 1067 . ; (6) Abdul Shakoor v. Rikhab Chand and others, AIR 1958 SC 52 . ; (7) Guru Gobinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad Ghoshal, AIR 1964 SC 254 . ; (8) D. R. Guriishantappa v. Abdul Khuddus Anwar, AIR 1969 SC 244 . ; (9) Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar and another v. Agedi Sangamine Andanappa etc., (1971) 3 SCC 870 .; (10) Madhukar G. E. Pankakar v. Jaswant Chobbildas Rajani and others, 1977 SCC 70 .; (11) Ashok Kumar Bhattacharyya v. Ajay Biswas and others, (1985) 1 SCC 151 . ; (12) Vaisli Degree Cellege, (1976) 2 SCC 58 .. (13) Arya Vidya Sabha v. Krishna Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1976 SC 1073 ; (14) Smt. J. S. Tewari, 1981 UPLBEC 34 ; (15) Aley Ahmad Abidi v. Dist. Inspector Of Schools, AIR 1977 All 539 ; (16) Agarwal Digambar Jain Samiti v. Badi Prasad Srivastava, 1984 Education Cases 154 .; (17) Rajasthan State Electricity Board, AIR 1967 SC 185 ; (18) Sukhde Singh and others, (1975) SCC 421 ; (19) International Airport Authority, 1979 (3) SCC 489 ; (20) Ajay Hasia and others, (1981) 1 SCC 722 ; (21) Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956 .; (22) Master Vishnu Kapoor v. Council of India School Certificate Examination and another, AIR 1985 Delhi 242. ; (23) Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 1977 (1) SCC 55. ; (24) State of U.P. etc. v. District Judge, Varanasi etc., 1981 UPLBEC 336. ; (25) Raghunath Prasad Bhatnagar v. Administrator, Committee of Management, 1985 Lab IC 1648 (All). ; (26) Surya Kant Roy v. Inamul Haq Khan, 1971 (1) SCC 531. ; (27) Hakikatullah v. Nathu Singh and others, (1953) 6 ELR 10. ; (28) Manmohan Singh Jaitla v. Union Territory Chandigarh, AIR 1985 SC 364 . ; (29) Rajesh Kumar Shukla v. Dr. S. S. Dubey, 1984 AWC 397. ; (30) Dr. Ramji Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and others, 1983 (3) SCC 52 . ; (31) Krishna Pal Singh v. Government of U.P. etc., 1981 UPLBEC 523. ; (32) Prabodh Verma and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1984 (4) SCC 251 . ; (29) Rajesh Kumar Shukla v. Dr. S. S. Dubey, 1984 AWC 397. ; (30) Dr. Ramji Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and others, 1983 (3) SCC 52 . ; (31) Krishna Pal Singh v. Government of U.P. etc., 1981 UPLBEC 523. ; (32) Prabodh Verma and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1984 (4) SCC 251 . (33) Behari Lai Dobray v. Roshan Lai Dobray, 1984 (1) SCC 551 . ; (34) State of Gujarat v. Raman Lai Keshar Lai Soni, 1983 (2) SCC 33 . ; (35) Karbhari Bhimaji Rohamare, 1975 (1) SCC 252 (36) Koria Prabhakara Rao, 1982 (1) SCC 482 ; (37) Gopala Karup v. Samual Srulappan Paul, AIR 1961 Kerala 242. ; (38) Chhedi Ram v. Jhilmit Ram and others, 1984 (2) SCC 251.. 30. This Court in the said Election Petition No. 54 of 1985 held that a teacher of a Government aided Intermediate College in Uttar Pradesh did not hold an office of profit as contemplated by Article 191(1) of the Constitution of India. 31. The same matter again came up for hearing before this Court in Election Petition No. 18 of 1985 - Mohammad Ahmad Vakil v. Sri Kitnwar Bahadur Misra and others., and it was held that a teacher of an Intermediate College receiving Government aid did not hold an office of profit as contemplated by Article 191(1) of the Constitution of India. 32. In the aforesaid two Election Petitions No. 54 of 1985 and 18 of 1985, it was argued that the educational institutions were run through a Committee of Management constituted by a Society incorporated under the Societies Registration Act, 1980 which Committee was an agency of the State, and that the appointment, removal, suspension and penalty matters were all controlled by the State Government even to the extent that sometimes college fee was directly collected by the Inspector of Schools and the institution receiving substantial financial aid from the State Government was also liable to pay salary to the teachers who were selected through a Commission. It was further argued in that case that the teachers received their pension, gratuity and provident fund and other benefits from the State Government and from the public exchequer. It was further argued in that case that the teachers received their pension, gratuity and provident fund and other benefits from the State Government and from the public exchequer. But it was held in those cases that the Committee of Management was not an instrumentality of the State as the appointment of teachers, Head Masters or Principals was made by the Committee and not by the State Government and that the State Government exercised power only to safeguard against mal-administration while the grants-in-aid were given only when matching funds were made available by the institutions ; it was not the responsibility of the State Government to bear the entire financial burden of the institutions as the ultimate liability of payment of salary etc. was of the Management ; the collection of fees by the Inspector of Schools was for and on behalf of Management; the approval in the matter of penalties was taken only to ensure adequacy of punishment and to prevent nepotism of the Committee of Management. The Commission was not a Government department and any appointment made by the Commission did not tantamount to the appointment by the State government. The Commission acted merely as a watch dog while the initiation to suspend any Principal or teacher rested with the Management; the Inspector of Schools could not compel the Management to initiate suspension ; and that the power exercised by the State Government was clearly intended to safeguard against mal-administration and to promote excellence of education which vitally concerned the community. 33. All the aforesaid issues were raised in the instant petition also. But the position of the Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow in the instant petition stood on a better footing since it has been a minority institution as contemplated by Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the petitioner Sri B. C. Saxena held an office of profit under the State Government of Uttar Pradesh the contemplation of Article 191(1) of the Constitution of India. The State Government did not exercise control over the appointment, dismissal, removal of the said College so as to invoke the provisions of Article 191 (l)(a) of the Constitution of India against the petitioner, with the result that the nomination paper of the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer and the election of the respondent No. 1 became void. All these issues are accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner. Issue No. 5. 34. The respondent No. 1 simply pleaded in para 43 of his written statement that the petition has not been filed in accordance with the provisions of Representation of People Act and that the petition was time-barred. The respondent No. 1 did not substantiate his contention. The nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected on 9-4-1984. The result of the election was declared on 2-5-1984. The petition was filed within 45 days on 14-6-1984. Hence, this issue is decided against the respondent No. 1. Issue No. 6. 35. The respondent No. 1 moved a Civil Misc. Application No. 43 of 1986 also apart from pleading that the Election Petition was not properly verified. In Civil Misc. Application No. 43 of 1986, the respondent No. 1 prayed for dismissing the Election Petition for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act on the ground that the copy of the Election Petition supplied to h:m was not attested to be a true copy in the manner provided in Section 81 (3) of the Act. The petitioner filed reply to that application vide Civil Misc. Application No. 44 (E) of 1986 supported by an affidavit. The office report also indicated that the provisions of Sections 81, 82, 83 and 117 of the Act were complied and the petition was accompanied by three attested copies of the petition which was personally presented by the petitioner. This objection was raised by the respondent No. 1 after the written statement was filed and after the petitioner had closed his evidence. The respondent No. 1 himself had closed his evidence in January, 1986 while this application No. 43 (E) of 1986 was moved on 14-4-86. The affidavit accompanying this application No. 43(E) of 1986 was not properly verified as the date was not properly sworn in the affidavit. It is written at two places as "Lucknow-dated 14-1986." The month is missing in it. It shows that the deponent of this affidavit had not actually sworn it. As about the verification of the petition, it has been properly verified as contemplated by the Act. As such, this issue is decided against the respondent No. 1. Issue No. 8. 36. It is written at two places as "Lucknow-dated 14-1986." The month is missing in it. It shows that the deponent of this affidavit had not actually sworn it. As about the verification of the petition, it has been properly verified as contemplated by the Act. As such, this issue is decided against the respondent No. 1. Issue No. 8. 36. The petitioner has been a teacher of Lucknow Christian Degree College, Lucknow which is a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. He did not hold any office of profit as contemplated by Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and his nomination paper was wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer, with the result that the election of the respondent No. 1 became void and this petition is fit to be allowed. 37. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The election of the respondent No. 1, Dr. Hari Krishna Awasthi alias Dr. H. K. Awasthi is declared void and is set aside under Section 100(1 )(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. 38. Under the circumstances of the case, the costs are made easy. The petitioner may withdraw with the permission of the Court the amount of security, deposited by him. 39. The Civil Misc. Application No. 43(E) of 1986 is rejected. 40. Substance of this judgment shall be sent forthwith to the Election Commission and the Hon'ble Chairman of the Legislative Council of Uttar Pradesh. Certified copies of the judgment shall be expeditiously sent to the Election Commission in duplicate.