ORDER V.P. Mathur, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 Shri S.N. Mishra, Advocate. Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Through this election petition the election of respondent No. 1 Nityanand Swami to the U.P. Legislative Council from Garhawal- Kumaun Graduate Constituency has been challenged and it is prayed that his election may be declared void and the petitioner may be declared as elected to the U.P. Legislative Council from Garhwal Kumaun Graduate Constituency. 3. The brief facts are that eleven candidates filed their nomination papers for one seat to the U.P. Legislative Council from Garhwal-Kumaun Graduate Constituency. Three persons namely Janardan Pant. Nandan Singh Fartiyal and Mahendra Singh withdrew their nomination papers and thus only eight candidates remained in the field to contest the election and they were petitioner and the respondents Nos. 1 to 7. The polling took place on 29-4-1984 between 10 A.M. and 5 P.M. and the counting took place on 2-5-1984 at 10 A.M. and continued till 3-5-1984 8 A. M. The opposite party No. 1 Nityanand Swami was declared elected. He had received 6003 votes while Shri Bhagirath lal petitioner received 5602 votes. A large number of irregularities were committed. It is also contended that the respondent No. 3 was a teacher in a Government aided and recognised Intermediate College and therefore he was debarred from contesting the election and since his nomination paper was accepted, it materially affected the result of the election of the returned candidate. 4. A large number of paragraphs of the election-petition were got deleted by virtue of the order passed by this court on an application under Order VI Rule-16 C.P.C. This left only two points to be decided. The first was whether the result of the election will be deemed to have been materially affected on account of the acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No. 3 Sri Inder Lal Shah and whether he will be deemed to be holding an office of profit under the Government and what will be its effect. The first was whether the result of the election will be deemed to have been materially affected on account of the acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No. 3 Sri Inder Lal Shah and whether he will be deemed to be holding an office of profit under the Government and what will be its effect. The 2nd point was whether the result of the election has been materially affected by non- compliance of the provisions of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules framed there- under as per details given in the surviving sub-paragraphs of paragraph No. 16 of the petition. The point No. 2 was taken up for disposal on 10-3-88 and was decided in the absence of any evidence to the effect against the election-petitioner. This leaves point No. 1 only to be decided now. 5. A similar question arose for decision before this Court in the Election Petition No. 1 of 1984 (Reported in 1988 All LI 473) Jagdish Chandra Shastri v. Om Prakash Sharma with which five other election petitions were also connected. Earlier to this, this point was also raised in almost similar circumstances in respect of the election to the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh through Election Petition No. 54 of 1985 (Reported in 1986 All LJ 507) in the matter of Sarnam Singh v. Smt. Pushpa Devi, and this Court in both the cases came to the conclusion after referring to the various provisions of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teachers) Ordinance 1978, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and Other Employees) Act 1971, U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act and the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 that a teacher in a Government recognised aided institution in Uttar Pradesh could not be treated to be holding an office of profit under the Government of Uttar Pradesh and could not be held to be debarred from contesting an election either to the legislative assembly or to the legislative council. 6. Similar observations have been made in other judgments delivered by Brother Justice V.K. Mehrotra in Election Petn. No. 24 of 1985 (Ram Prakash Tripathi v. Santosh), Brother Justice Om Prakash in Election Petn. 6. Similar observations have been made in other judgments delivered by Brother Justice V.K. Mehrotra in Election Petn. No. 24 of 1985 (Ram Prakash Tripathi v. Santosh), Brother Justice Om Prakash in Election Petn. No. 20 of 1985 (Dhruva Kumar v. Praveen Kumar Sharma) and in Election Petn. No. 19 of 1985 (Suraj Singh Shakya v. Virendra). In all these petitions, the same point was involved. I am, therefore, of the view that the acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No. 3 Inder Lal Shah was justified and cannot provide any ground to challenge the election of the respondent No. 1 Nityanand Swami. 7. In the result, the election petition stands dismissed with costs which assess at Rs. 500/-