Judgment

Quadri, J.-Leave is granted.

2. The question that arises in this appeal is whether the appellant was holding ‘office of profit’ under the State Government while func­tioning provisionally as Assistant Public Prosecutor and was therefore disqualified to become a member/Chairman of a Samiti under the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959.

3. The factual backdrop in which the question falls for consideration may briefly be set out here:

3.1 On August 14, 1995 the appellant, an advocate practising in the courts of Cuttack, was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor provisionally under Rule 5(4) of the Orissa Law Officers Rules, 1971 (for short ‘the Rules’) read with Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to conduct the criminal cases. He was entitled to daily fee of Rs. 100/- subject to restrictions under the rules. While so he contested the election to the seat of the member of Moroda Panchayat Samiti and the fourth respondnet contested for the seat of member of Gudigan Panchayat Samiti. After being elected as members, both of them contested in the election to the post of Chairman of Moroda Panchayat Samiti. Appellant was declared elected as Chairman on February 10, 1997.