ORDER V.P. Mathur, J. - These six election petitions have come up for disposal of a preliminary point which is to the effect whether a teacher working in an educational institution recongnised and aided by the government, holds of an office of profit within the meaning of Article 191 of the Constitution of India'? If so, is it a disqualification for contesting election to the U.P. Legislature. 2. The learned counsel on both the sides in these election petitions argued this preliminary point and wanted its decision first. It is under these circumstances that all these election petitions in which the same point is involved have come up for decision through this judgment. The original shall be placed on the record of Election Petition No. 1 of 1984 and the other five election petitions shall also stand disposed of accordingly. 3. In Election Petition No. 1 of 1984 Jagdish Chandra Shastri was the defeated candidate. The opposite parties were : Om Prakash Sharma who was the elected- candidate, Narendra Karun and Ranvir Singh Chowdhary who both also lost. It was in connection with the election as Member of the Legislative Council from the Meerut Teachers' constituency. This election was held on 29-4-1984 and Om Prakash Sharma was elected on 1-5-1984. The contention of the defeated candidate Jagdish Chandra Shastri is that all the respondents namely Om Prakash Sharma, Narendra Karun and Ranvir Singh Chowdhary were working as permanent teachers. Om Prakash Sharma was a Lecturer in the Janata Inter College, Kharkhaunda, District Meerut. Narendra Karun was a teacher in the Sarvodaya Inter-College Panchali Khurd, District-Meerut and Ranvir Singh was the Principal of the Janata Vedic Inter College, Barot, District Meerut. Since each one of them was holding,an office of profit within the meaning of Article 191 of the Constitution of India, hence they were dis- qualified and their nomination-papers should have been rejected. The prayer is for the quashing of the election of respondent No. 1 and quashing of the nomination papers of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and for declaration of the petitioner Jagdish Chandra Shastri as elected. A penalty at the rate of Rs. 500/- per sitting in the counsel is also prayed to be levied on and realised from Om Prakash Sharma. 4. In Election Petition No. 2 of 1984, the petitioner is a Voter from the Gorakhpur- Faisabad Teachers' Constituency. 2 and 3 and for declaration of the petitioner Jagdish Chandra Shastri as elected. A penalty at the rate of Rs. 500/- per sitting in the counsel is also prayed to be levied on and realised from Om Prakash Sharma. 4. In Election Petition No. 2 of 1984, the petitioner is a Voter from the Gorakhpur- Faisabad Teachers' Constituency. The Election was for the legislative Council of Uttar Pradesh which was held on 29-4-1984. Nar Singh Tewari-Opp. party was elected and the declaration of election was made on 1-5-1984. It is contended by Shanti Kumar Shukla-Petitioner. that the respondent is a permanent lecturer in the Marwari Inter College, Gorakhpur and as such holds an office of profit under Article 191 of the Constitution of India and hence was disqualified from seeking the election. The relief claimed is of quashing of the election of Narsingh Tewari and of recovery of penalty at the rate of Rs. 500/-per sitting from him. 4A. The Election Petition No. 3 of 1984 has been filed by Ram Khilari Yadav a voter in the Agra Teachers' Constituency. The election of Prabhakar Misra as Member of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council from this Constituency is challenged. It was held on 29-4-1984. It is contended that the respondent is working as a permanent teacher in the National Inter College, Bhogaon, Mainpuri, which falls within the Agra L Teachers Constituency. The contention is that he holds an office of profit under Article 191 of the Constitution of India and hence is disqualified. The prayer is that his election be quashed as well as his nomination paper be also rejected and a penalty at the rate of Rs. 500/- per sitting be recovered from him. 5. In Election Petition No. 4 of 1984 Kaka Joginder Singh has come as a petitioner. He was also a candidate along with opposite parties for the seat of one Member of Legislative Counsel from Bareilly Division Teachers' Constituency. All the opposite parties are variously employed as teachers in various colleges. The details are as follows : 1. Keshav Kumar is a teacher in T. N. Inter College, Moradabad. 2. Jai Dayal is also a teacher in Krisik Inter College, Sitapur. 3. Jaipal Singh is a teacher in Munna Lal Inter College, Wazirganj, Budaun. 4. D. K. Mishra is a teacher in Sri Gulab Rai Inter College, Bareilly. 5. The details are as follows : 1. Keshav Kumar is a teacher in T. N. Inter College, Moradabad. 2. Jai Dayal is also a teacher in Krisik Inter College, Sitapur. 3. Jaipal Singh is a teacher in Munna Lal Inter College, Wazirganj, Budaun. 4. D. K. Mishra is a teacher in Sri Gulab Rai Inter College, Bareilly. 5. Lakshman Khanna is also a teacher in the same Institution. 6. Surender Pal is a teacher in Saraswati Vidvalaya Inter College, Bareilly. 7. Halim Dad Khan is a teacher in Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Kakrala, Budaun. 8. Annis Ahmad is a teacher in Maulana Azad Inter College, Bareilly. 6. Nomination papers were filed on 5-4 1984 and scrutiny took place on 6-4-1984 and 9-4-1984. The nomination papers of opp. parties Nos. 1 to 8 were accepted. The petitioner was also a bona fide candidate. The election was held on 29-4-1984 and opp. party No. 1 Keshav Kumar was declared elected. Since he held office of profit within the meaning of Article 191 of the Constitution of India and he along with opposite parties Nos. 1 to 8 were all disqualified from seeking election their nomination papers ought to have been rejected. The prayer is that the election of Keshav Kumar be quashed along with nomination papers of opp. parties Nos. 1 to 8 and the petitioner be declared elected. A penalty at the rate of Rs. 500/- per sitting of the Council may also be realised from opp. party No. 1. 7. Election Petition No. 6 of 1984 has been preferred by Hira Mani Dubey, a voter in the Varanasi Khand Teachers' Constituency. It is against Ram Adarsh Rai, who is a permanent teacher in a recognised Higher Secondary School in Varanasi Division. The election was again for the legislative council from the Teachers' Constituency. It was held on 29-4-1984 and Ram Adarsh Rai (opp. party) was elected. Although he was disqualified because he holds an office of profit within the meaning of Article 191 of the Constitution of India. The prayer, therefore, is for quashing of his election as an M.L.C. and for recovery of penalty of Rs. 500/- per sitting in the Council. 8. party) was elected. Although he was disqualified because he holds an office of profit within the meaning of Article 191 of the Constitution of India. The prayer, therefore, is for quashing of his election as an M.L.C. and for recovery of penalty of Rs. 500/- per sitting in the Council. 8. In Election Petition No. 8 of 1984 Ram Sewak Shukla election petitioner is an elector or voter from Mahadeo Prasad Inter College Mundera Bazar, Chouri-Chaura, Gorakhpur for Gorakhpur-Faizabad Khand Teachers' Constituency, from which one member of the legislative Council was to be elected. Out of all the opp. parties, five are teachers as per details below No. 6 Sri R.N. Thakuraiis not a teacher. Narsingh 'ewari' was declared elected. The last date for filing of nomination paper was 5-4-1984 and scrutiny took place on 6-4-1984. The date of withdrawal of the nomination paper was 9-4-1984. Poll took place on 29-4-1984. There were in all seven candidates in the fray. The nomination paper of one candidate Kameshwar Prasad Pandey Assistant Teacher was rejected by the Returning Officer, but the nomination papers of opp. parties Nos. 1 to 6 were accepted. Counting of votes took place on 1-5-1984 and Narsingh Tewari was declared elected. Since Narsing Tewari as well as opposite parties Krishna Kumar Upadhyaya, Ramjanam Singh, Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi, Satish Mani Tripathi (opp. parties Nos. 1 to 5) hold office of profit within the meaning of Article 191 of the Constitution of India, they were disqualified from contesting the election. As a result it is prayed that the election of Nar Singh Tewari be quashed and the nomination papers of opp. parties Nos. 2 to 5 be also quashed and R. N. Thakurai opp. party No. 6 be declared as elected, 9. The opposite parties filed written statements and issues were framed on various dates in these cases. One of these issues is a preliminary issue which is now being disposed of by this order. 10. parties Nos. 2 to 5 be also quashed and R. N. Thakurai opp. party No. 6 be declared as elected, 9. The opposite parties filed written statements and issues were framed on various dates in these cases. One of these issues is a preliminary issue which is now being disposed of by this order. 10. In all those election petitions, various provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, of the U.P. High School and Inter- Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Employees) Act, 1971, of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission have been cited in extension in support of the contention that Teachers of Government aided Education Institutions should be deemed to be holding office of profit under the Government of Uttar Pradesh and hence should be held to be debarred from seeking election to the legislative council. 11. A case in almost similar circumstances but in respect of election to the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh came up before this court through Election Petn. No. 54 of 1985 (reported in 1986 All LJ 507) in the matter of Sarnam Singh v. Smt. Pushpa Devi. In that case Smt. Pushpa Devi respondent No. 1 was declared elected having secured 23006 votes. The respondent No. 2 obtained the next highest number of votes namely 20735. There was thus a margin of 2271 votes in between the two. The respondent No. 8 who was also a candidate, got only 2606 votes. The petitioner was an Elector in the Constituency and he took the stand that the result of election in so far as it concerned the returned candidate, has been materially affected because of improper acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No. 8 who on the relevant date of filing of nomination paper and even thereafter was a teacher in the L.T. Grade in Babu Ram Singh Intermediate College, Baburela, Budaun. It was contended that as a teacher he was holding an office of profit under the Government of Uttar Pradesh and had thus incurred disqualification in view of Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The contest was that the respondent No. 1 did not hold an office of profit as a teacher of a recognised Government aided institution, because he was not a Government servant and his nomination was rightly accepted. The contest was that the respondent No. 1 did not hold an office of profit as a teacher of a recognised Government aided institution, because he was not a Government servant and his nomination was rightly accepted. Brother Justice B.D. Agarwal who decided that election petition considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law on each point. 12. Sarnam Singh's case has been reported in 1986 All U 507. Brother Justice B.D. Agarwal has dealt at considerable length with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations framed thereunder. He has also considered the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act 1982. The U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act 1980 and the U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teachers) Ordinance of 1978 as well as the U.P. Basic Education Act of 1972 have also been considered in detail. There are some other decisions also on which similar point has been considered and disposed of. One is the case decided by me being Election Petn. No. 13 of 1985 Dr. (Smt.) Rajendra Kumari Verma v. Vijai Singh Rana, AIR 1987 All 121 . This judgment was delivered on 19-3-1986. Hon'ble V.K. Nlehrotra, J. disposed of Election Petn. No. 24 of 1985 (Ram Prakash Tripathi v. Santosh alias Santosh Chaturvedi) on 12.8.1987. Honble Om Prakash, J. disposed of Election Petn, No. 20 of 1985 (Dhruva Kumar v. Praveen Kumar Sharma) on 7.2.1986. The same Hon'ble Judge also decided Election Petn. No. 19 of 1985. Suraj Singh Shakya v. Virendra on 12.1.1987. In all these cases the same question was involved : whether a teacher working in a Government aided recognised educational institution in Uttar Pradesh should be deemed to be holding a post of profit under the Government and should, therefore, be deemed to be debarred from seeking an election to the legislature of the State. Sarnam Singh's case has been the basis of all the subsequent decisions. 13. Sarnam Singh's case has been the basis of all the subsequent decisions. 13. I have also considered the Rules of the U.P. Schools and Colleges Teachers Gratuity Fund and the rules of contributory provident fund, Insurance, Pension Scheme- Triple Benefit Scheme U.P. Education Code, relevant provisions of the Constitution and a large number of decisions of Supreme Court which were also considered in the case of Surnam Singh (1986 All U 507) (supra). 14. When an office becomes an office of profit under the State within the meaning of Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution, is a matter which requires consideration and it has been considered in all these above judgments. For holding an office of profit under the government, one need not necessarily be in the service of the Government and there need not be relationship of Master and Servant between the Government and such a man. Even if there is payment of remuneration not from the public revenue, it will be a neutral factor. Who has the power to appoint ? who has the power to direct removal from service or to punish ? who has the power to regulate or discipline ? are factors to be considered as good indicia but even they will not be decisive. The substance and not the form is always material. The governing criterion is to be the degree of control which the Government exercises over the concerned authority. This extent of control is to be the measure. The composition of the authority is relevant fact and the degree to which it is dependent upon the Government for its functional aspect and the financial need has also to be looked into along with the fact whether this body is discharging some important governmental function. It may be that at times the form of a body corporate is independent of the Government but in substance it is just the alter ego of the Government itself. In that case it will be deemed to be under the government. If the control of the authority is in form alone and not deep or pervasive and the extent or measure of Government control is preponderating, it would virtually amount as control of the State Government itself. 15. In that case it will be deemed to be under the government. If the control of the authority is in form alone and not deep or pervasive and the extent or measure of Government control is preponderating, it would virtually amount as control of the State Government itself. 15. The case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487 lays down a caution which the courts have to keep in mind while giving a wide meaning to the expression 'other authorities' in Article 12 of the Constitution. This expression - wide meaning - should not he stretched so far as to bring in every autonomous body which might be having some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the expression. The range of governmental activity was always undoubtedly broad and varied but merely because an activity may be such as may legitimately be carried on by Government itself, it did not mean that a body corporate which is otherwise a private entity, would be deemed to be instrumentality or agency of the government, if it carries on such activity. 16. A consideration of the laws concerning education in Uttar Pradesh which have been detailed above, will clearly show that the control of the Government is expanding vis-a-vis the Committee of Management constituted under the scheme of Administration framed in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act or the Commission created under the U.P. Act 5 of 1982 and yet this control is not such, as might give rise to any conflict between the personal interest of a person placed in the position of a teacher in such an educational institution and his duties as a Member of the U.P. Legislature in such a manner as to defeat the central object underlying the statutory disqualification. 17. The learned counsel who preferred the arguments before me, could not convince me that the interpretation of law as made in Sarnam Singh's case (1986 All U 507) was defective or incomplete. 18. In Bihari Lal Debray's case, 1984 All LJ 203 the Supreme Court has given a clear indication of the extent of control of the Government which may lead to the conclusion that the body was actually a Government body and a person employed by it was a person holding Government job. 18. In Bihari Lal Debray's case, 1984 All LJ 203 the Supreme Court has given a clear indication of the extent of control of the Government which may lead to the conclusion that the body was actually a Government body and a person employed by it was a person holding Government job. To quote : (1984) 1 SCC 551 : (1984 All U 203): "Some times the form may be that of a body corporate independent of the Government but in substance it may be just the alter ego of the Government itself. Holding an office of profit which every teacher in an educational institution holds under a body which falls short of being an alter ego of the Government will not amount to holding the office of profit under the Government." 19. In view of these facts and circumstances and in the light of the observations made by brother Judge B.D. Agarwal in Sarnam Singh's case (1986 All U 507) and by other Hon'ble Judges of this Court in cases mentioned, I feel that the efforts of the learned counsel for the petitioners have failed to impress me so as to enable me to take a view different from that taken by the brother Judge B.D. Agarwal in Sarnam Singh's case. I, therefore, hold that the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Election Petition No. 1 of 1984, respondent No. I of Election Petition No. 2 of 1984, respondent No. 1 of Election Petition No. 3 of 1984 and respondents Nos. 1 to 8 of Election Petition No. 4 of 1984 and respondent No. 1 of Election Petition No. 6 of 1984 and respondents Nos. 1 to 5 of Election Petition No. 8 of 1984 who were all teachers working in different educational institutions in Uttar Pradesh, institutions which were recognised and aided by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, did not hold the office of profit under the Government and were not liable to be held as disqualified for contesting the election to the Legislative Council of Uttar Pradesh from the Constituencies concerned and these election petitions are liable to be dismissed as showing no cause of action. ORDER 20. In the result, all the above noted Election Petitions stand dismissed with costs which I assess in each case to Rs. 500/-.