Abdul Gafoor, J.

The appellant attempted an election petition. He lost. Therefore, this appeal.

2. The appellant herein and the second respondent were the contesting candidates. The appellant lost in the election by 63 votes. He challenged the election of the second respondent on the ground that the second respondent continued to hold an office of profit as a Checking Inspector in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the K.S.R.T.C.), a public sector undertaking, not only on the date of submission of nomination paper, but also on the date of election and even on the date of declaration of the result. He further contends that, in order to show that the nomination paper filed by the second respondent was in order, the second respondent had manipulated documents in such a way that there was acceptance of his voluntary retirement before the nomination. Really, there was no voluntary retirement in the eye of law. There was no legal request for voluntary retirement, much less its acceptance as on the date of nomination. The court below did not advert to these aspects in its legal perspective, it is contended.

3. Admittedly, the second respondent was a Checking Inspector in the services of the K.S.R.T.C., governed by the Rules in the Kerala Services Rules, as adopted by the K.S.R.T.C. It is contended that Rule 56 part III of the Kerala Service Rules provided for voluntary retirement. The incumbent shall give notice in writing to the appointing authority or the pension sanctioning authority of his intention to retire, at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire. Of course, the proviso to the said Rule gives power to relax the said period of notice. For that also, there shall be specific request and specific order from the appointing authority. There was no such request and there was no such order, it is contended. It is further contended that the order allowing voluntary retirement has been passed only on 28.9.2000 by the Personal Officer, RW.2, the appointing authority. This was later than the declaration of the result of the election even. Therefore, as on the date of nomination, the date of poll and the date of declaration of the result, the second respondent continued to be an employee. Therefore, he held an office of profit disqualifying himself to be a candidate for an election of the block panchayat.

4. It is contended by the second respondent that as is revealed by Ext.X4(b), there was sanction of voluntary retirement by the Personal Officer. That was issued in the form of a formal order only on 28.9.2000. The officer who issued that order has deposed as RW.2 that even earlier than the date of that order, he had sanctioned voluntary retirement as is endorsed on Ext.X4(b). Therefore, voluntary retirement relates back even prior to the date of nomination. So, there is nothing irregular in this case. When thus a voluntary retirement is sanctioned by RW.2, there is a presumption of waiver of notice required under Rule 56(1) of the Rules. It is further contended that though there was a contention regarding manipulation, nothing of that sort had been proved by the appellant/election petitioner. Strict proof of the allegations contained in the election petition is a pre-requisite to allow an election petition. When the allegation of manipulation is not proved, the election petition ought not to have been allowed. Therefore, there is no reason for interference in this appeal.

5. The contention of the appellant before the court below was that the second respondent continued to hold an office of profit, as there was no order in the eye of law permitting his voluntary retirement. The voluntary retirement can be permitted only in terms of the statute. The statute mentions about three months clear notice or a specific request in writing to waive the notice period and a specific order thereon. The entire files Ext.X4(b) reveal that no such request was made no such exemption was allowed. It was