JUDGMENT

VENKATARAMIAH, J.:— The question involved in this appeal is whether an Assistant Teacher employed in a Basic Primary School run by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 34 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is disqualified for being chosen as a member of the State Legislative Assembly under. Art. 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

2. The appellant Biharilal Dobray, the respondent Roshan Lal Dobray and some others were nominated as candidates at the election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 308 Kanauj (S. C.) Assembly constituency at the last general elections held in the year 1980. The nomination paper of the respondent was, however, rejected by the Returning Officer by his order dated May 5, 1980 on the ground that he was holding an office of profit under the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh and hence was disqualified under Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution for being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly. After such rejection the polling took place on May 28, 1980 and the appellant who secured the highest number of votes was declared elected on June 1, 1980. Aggrieved by the result of the election, the respondent who was not allowed to contest the election by reason of the rejection of his nomination paper filed an election petition before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the correctness of the order of rejection of his nomination paper and the result of the election which was held thereafter. He contended that since the post of an Assistant Teacher in a Basic Education School which he held was not an office of profit under the State Government the rejection of his nomination was improper and, therefore, the election of the appellant was liable to be declared as void as provided in Section 100 (1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court being of the opinion that the post held by the respondent was not an office of profit under the State Government held that the rejection of his nomination was improper and the election of the appellant was liable to be declared as void. Accordingly the election petition was allowed and the appellants election was declared as void. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal under section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

3. Although there was an alternative plea raised in the election petition that the respondent had ceased to hold the post of the Assistant Teacher in the Basic Education School on the relevant date by reason of his prior resignation, it was not pressed at the hearing of the election petition and the parties proceeded on the basis that the respondent was holding the said post at all material times. The only issue tried by the High Court was whether the said post was an office of profit under the State Government or not which as stated earlier, was answered in favour of the respondent.

4. The plea of disqualification of the respondent for being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly was based on Article 191 of the Constitution, the material part of which reads thus :

"191. (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State -

(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder; ........."

5. The object of enacting Article 191 (1) (a) is plain. A person who is elected to a Legislature should be free to carry on his duties fearlessly without being subjected to any kind of governmental pressure. If such a person is holding an office which brings him remuneration and the Government has a voice in his continuance in that office, there is every likelihood of such person succumbing to the wishes