JUDGMENT :

Mitter, J.

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by a returned candidate at an election to Madhya Pradesh legislative assembly from Ujjain North-Constituency held in February 1967 declaring the election of the appellant void under Section 98 of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. There were no less than eight candidates at the said election, five of whom polled very few votes. The result of the election so far as the other three were concerned was as follows:

"1. Mahadev Govind

Joshi, the returnedcandidate secured 23,709 votes

2 Mrs Hansaben Patel

polled 10,767"

3 Shri Bansidhar

Azad polled 7093"

The election petition was filed by the husband of the 2nd respondent, Mrs Hansaben Patel. In the petition numerous grounds were taken for declaring the election of the appellant void under the Act and no less than five issues with different sub-heads were framed by the court on August 31, 1967, but at the final stage of the hearing only the first issue was canvassed. The said issue reads as follows:

1. (a) Was the Respondent 1 holding one or more of the three following offices of profit?

(i) his being included in the panel of lawyers prepared by the Central and Western Railway Administration;

(ii) his holding the post of the president-member of a Tribunal constituted under Section 73 of the M.P. Town Improvement Trusts Act, 1960;

(iii) his holding the office of Professor of Law in the Madhav College, Ujjain on regular salary of Rs. 250 p.m.;

(b) If so, its effect?"

3. Before the trial Judge a number of documents were exhibited and some witnesses were examined. The learned trial Judge was of opinion that the appellant, the successful candidate held an office of profit under Government being on the panel of lawyers prepared by the Central and Western Railway Administration and having been at the material time a Professor of Law in the Madhav College on a regular salary of Rs. 250 per month, but he was not prepared to hold on the material before him that the appellant held the post of the President-member of a Tribunal constituted under Section 73 of the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960.

4. The first alleged disqualification is based on a letter of appointment dated February 6, 1962 addressed by the Chief Commercial Superintendent to the appellant who accepted the conditions and terms of that letter by his reply within a few days thereafter. The letter of the Commercial Superintendent shows that the appellant's name was kept on the panel of Railway Pleaders for conducting suits filed against the Union of India in the courts of Ujjain on the terms and conditions therein mentioned. It is not necessary to recapitulate the terms excepting three or four to be mentioned presently. The first term showed that the appellant was ordinarily to be entrusted with cases up to valuation of rupees three thousand only. The ninth term imposed a condition on the appellant that he would not accept any briefs against any Railway in any court. Clause (13) of the terms is really the most important one for our present purposes and reads as follows:

"You will be expected to watch cases coming up for hearing against this Railway in the various courts at UJB and give timely intimation of the same to this office. If no instructions regarding any particular case are received by you, you will be expected to appear in the court and obtain an adjournment to save the ex parte proceedings against this Railway in the court. You will be paid Rs. 5 for every such adjournment if you are not entrusted with the conduct of the suit later on."

The other terms deal mostly with the fees and the expenses to which the appellant would be entitled if he accepted the engagement.

5. The question before us is, whether by accepting the engagement, the appellant could be said to have held an office of profit. The word "office" according to Webster's New World Dictionary means, inter alia, "a function or du