JUDGMENT

K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.:- This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 preferred against the order of the High Court setting aside the election of the appellant who was elected as a member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from No. 8 Naguru (ST) constituency on the ground that he was holding an office of profit under the State Government at the relevant time and was thus disqualified under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India for being chosen as a member of the Assembly.

2. The appellant was appointed as a single Teacher in a primary school run by the Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA for short) by its Project Officer. He joined duty in January, 1988 and was working in a school in Jiyyammavalasa Mandal in Vizianagaram district. On 2-8-88 the Tribal Welfare Officer inspected the said school and is alleged to have noticed some irregularities and he kept the appellant under suspension pending enquiry by an order dated 23-8-88. The appellant questioned the same before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing a petition but the same was rejected. Thereafter by a letter dated 6-10-189 the appellant submitted his resignation to the Project Officer who was the appointing authority. However, the Project Officer made an endorsement on the said letter that his resignation cannot be accepted in view of the pending enquiry. Subsequently the election programme for the Legislative Assembly was announced and the appellant filed his nomination and contested election from the above-mentioned constituency on 22-11-89. Counting took place on 26-11-89 and on 27-, 1 1-89 the appellant was declared duly elected. The respondent No. 1, who was one of the contesting candidates and who lost the election, filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was disqualified as he was holding an office of profit not only on the date of filing the nomination but also subsequently in view of the fact that his resignation was not accepted in view of the pending enquiry and therefore he shall be deemed to be holding an office of profit under the Government. The respondent also stated in his election petition that he was not aware of the appellants disqualification at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers. The appellant filed a written submission contesting the election petition inter alia contending that the ITDA under which he is deemed to be holding an office as 5 teacher was only a registered society under the Societies Registration Act and the said society cannot be said to be the Government nor is a part of the Government and that it is an independent body. It is also stated that since he has tendered his resignation on 26-10-89 it shall be deemed to have come into effect from that date.

3. The only issue that came up for consideration before the High Court in the election petition was whether the first respondent i.e. appellant herein was holding an office of profit under the Government of Andhra Pradesh on the date of his nomination and was disqualified to contest for the same.

4. Evidence was led in by both the sides. The main contention of the appellant was that ITDA was only a registered society and even assuming that the Government has some control over the sanction of posts and composition of the governing body of the ITDA it cannot be said to be the Government or part of it or to be an instrumentality of the Government. Therefore the appellant cannot be said to have been holding an office of profit and the mere fact that he was appointed as a teacher by the Project Officer of the Society he cannot be deemed to have been appointed by the Government. The learned Judge after referring to the relevant clauses of memorandum of association of the Society held that i) Although the Society appears to be independent of the State Government but in substance its activities are controlled by the officers of the Go