JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel of the caveator appearing for non-petitioner No. 2. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute so far as that the petitioner contested the election of the Sarpanch for the Panchayat Ajoliya-ka-Kheda in Tehsil Gangrar District Chittorgarh. The non-petitioner No. 2 also submitted his nomination paper which was rejected, by the Returning Officer on the ground that non petitioner No. 2 was working in the employment of Hindustan Zinc Limited which is Government of India enterprise and, therefore non-petitioner No. 2 is disqualified to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch. The non-petitioner No. 2 preferred election petition under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short `the Act of 1994') and challenged the election of the petitioner of the ground that the Returning Officer wrongly rejected the nomination paper of non-petitioner No. 2. 3. Before the trial court non-applicant Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8, despite service did not appear. Non-applicant Nos. 3, 6, 7 and 9 also subsequently did not appear, therefore, the trial court passed the order on 15.9.2000 to proceed ex parte against these respondent also. In ex parte proceedings, the non petitioner 2 was examined. In the trial court after relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Pradyut Bordoloi v. Swapan Roy, AIR 2002 SC 296 held that the Returning Officer committed illegality in rejecting the nomination form of non-petitioner No. 2 and set aside the election of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the out set submitted that the petitioner is not challenging the order of the trial court by which the ex parte proceedings were taken against the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the judgment of the trial court only on merits. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per sub-clause (1) of Section 19 of the Act of 1994, a person is disqualified to contest the election of Panch if he is disqualified by or under any law which is in force for the purpose of election to the legislature of the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner's services are governed by the Conduct Rules framed by his employer Hindustan Zinc Limited. The petitioner's services are governed by the Conduct Rules framed by his employer Hindustan Zinc Limited. As per rule 11(b) of the said Rules, an employee of the Hindustan Zinc Limited is debarred from taking part in an election to any legislature or local authority. The said Rules are having the nature of statutory Rules in view of the judgment of this Court delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3678/1998, Dr. Kusum Meghwal v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and another, decided on 24.8.1999 , therefore, non-petitioner No. 2 is prohibited by statutory Rules to contest the election of legislature of the State of Rajasthan and thereby, he incurs the disqualification to contest the election of Panch by virtue of sub-clause (a) of Section 19 of the Act of 1994. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner was holding the appointment and was whole-time salaried employees of the Hindustan Zinc Limited which is and enterprise of the Union of India and falls within the definition of the State as given in Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the non-petitioner No. 2 was disqualified under sub-clause (b) of Section 19 of the Act of 1994. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the court below committed illegality in relying upon the judgment, reported in the case of Pradyut Bardolot (supra) which was the judgment delivered in the matter of controversy under the Representation of People Act, 1951 and was relating to Article 191 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 submitted reply to the writ petition and submitted that non-petitioner No. 2 was not disqualified for the purpose of election to the legislature of the State of Rajasthan. Disqualification for membership of legislative assembly is given in Article 191 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner falls in none of the category of disqualifications for the purpose of election of Legislative Assembly under Article 191 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not holding any salaried post in any of the body mentioned in sub-clause (b) of Section 19 of the Act of 1994 which was financed by the State Government. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not holding any salaried post in any of the body mentioned in sub-clause (b) of Section 19 of the Act of 1994 which was financed by the State Government. - It was further submitted that the petitioner in his writ petition itself clearly admitted tha-the Hindustan Zinc Limited is the enterprise of the Union of India and it is nobody's case that Hindustan Zinc Limited is being financed partly or wholly or controlled by the State of Rajasthan, therefore, the petitioner incurs no disqualification to contest the election of the Sarpanch as any person who is eligible to contest the election of Panch, can contest the election of Sarpanch. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the cases of Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Raju v. Vyricherla Pradeep Kumar Dev and another, AIR 1992 SC 1959 , Aklu Ram Mahto v. Rajendra Mahto, AIR 1999 SC 1259 and Pradyut Bordoloi v. Swapan Roy, AIR 2002 SC 296 . 7. Since there is no dispute with respect to any of the factual aspects therefore, the writ petition can be decided straightway without calling record of the trial court. It is clear from the submission of the learned counsel for the parties that only question involved in the present matter is whether non-petitioner No. 2 was disqualified to contest the election because he was in employment of the Hindustan Zinc Limited and which is said to be Government of India enterprise. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the out set submitted that non-petitioner No. 2 was disqualified to contest the election in view of sub-clause (a) of Section 19 of because non-petitioner No. 2 is governed by the Conduct Rules framed by the Hindustan Zinc Limited and as per rule 11-B of the Conduct Rules, an employee of the Hindustan Zinc Limited is disqualified to take part in election of legislature of State of Rajasthan and, therefore, non-petitioner No. 2 incurred disqualification under Section 19(a) of the Act of 1994 to contest the election of Sarpanch for being disqualified to contest the election of the State Assembly. 9. 9. The petitioner in his writ petition at page 13 alleged that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of provisions of Section 10 of the Representation of People Act and Article 191 of the Constitution of India has no application in the present controversy. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument, reiterated and submitted that this is a case of disqualification under Section 19(a) and (b) of the Act of 1994 only. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Kusum Meghwal v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. & another, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3678/1998, decided on 24.8.1999 wherein it has been held after considering the Conduct Rules of the Hindustan Zinc Limited that these regulations are having statutory status and have a force of law. The second contention of the petitioner is that non-petitioner No. 2 is whole time salaried employee of the Hindustan Zinc Limited and Section 19(b) of the Act of 1994 disqualified a person who is part-time or whole time salaried employee appointed under a local authority a University or, any Corporation or Company or Enterprises or Co-operative Society which is either controlled or wholly or partly financed by the State Government. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner in his writ petition itself, admitted that Hindustan Zinc Limited is Government of India Company. There is, no averment that Hindustan Zinc Limited is being financed wholly or partly by the State Government or it is under the control of the State Government, therefore, non-petitioner No. 2 cannot incur any disqualification under clause (b) of Section 19 of the Act of 1994. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not been declared or Is disqualified to contest the election of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Rajasthan under any law. The disqualification to contest the election of the Legislative Assembly is given in Section 10 of the Representation of People Act. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not been declared or Is disqualified to contest the election of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Rajasthan under any law. The disqualification to contest the election of the Legislative Assembly is given in Section 10 of the Representation of People Act. The bar to contest the election provided under the Conduct Rules of the Hindustan Zinc Limited in rule 11(B) at the most makes the employee of the Hindustan Zinc Limited for punishment in accordance with the Rules if he contests the election the learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the cases of (1) Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Raju v. Vyricherla Pradeep Kumar Dev and another, AIR 1992 SC 1959 , (2) Aklu Ram Mahto v. Rajendra Mahto, AIR 1999 SC 1259 and Pradyut Bordolol v. Swapan Roy, AIR 2002 SC 296 . 11. After considering the facts of the case and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the trial court. It is not in dispute that non-petitioner No. 2 was employee of the Hindustan Zinc Limited only and is not a salaried whole-time or part-time appointee under any of such authority, Corporation or body which is controlled or wholly or partly financed by the State Government. Therefore, sub-clause (b) of Section 19 of the Act of 1994 has no application on non-petitioner No. 21. 12. In the case of Dr. Kusum Meghwal, one of the learned Single Judge of this Court relied upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kripal Singh, M.L.A. v. Uttam Singh & anr., AIR 1986 SC 300 wherein the Constitution Bench has held that if an employee of the Corporation had defied the Staff Regulations and sought election to the Assembly, he might have made himself liable to disciplinary action but that did not disqualify him from seeking election to the Assembly. In view of the above judgment, it is clear that even if there is a bar against contesting election of Legislature Assembly in the Conduct of Rules applicable to the employee and if violated by the employee by contesting election then he may be proceeded by his employer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Pradyut Borodoloi (supra, after considering the earlier judgments, held that in absence of proof that the candidate has supervisory function over his subordinate, does not make him Manager of Company then it cannot be held that he is holding the office of the Government so as to incur disqualification under Section 10 of the Representation of People Act. It is relevant to mention here that this is not the case of the even petition in pleading or in arguments that non-petitioner No. 2 is disqualified as per the provisions of Section 10 of the Representation of People Act. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below. 13. Hence there is no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Writ Petition dismissed. *******