The important question for consideration was whether a teacher of an aided school managed by the Panchayat was disqualified under Sec.30(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act from contesting the election for being chosen to fill a seat in the panchayat.

2. The short facts are as follows: The 1st respondent Thankam was working as a teacher of Alagappanager Panchayat High School and she filed the nomination for contesting the election to the Thrissur District Panchayat held on 25.9.2000 from Kodakara Constituency and she was declared elected. The appellant and the 2nd respondent were also candidates who contested for the election. The appellant raised a contention that the 1st respondent, being a teacher of the school managed by the Panchayat, was disqualified from contesting the election in view of sec.30(1) of the Panchayat Raj Act. It was further contended that the 1st respondent was the Implementation Officer of the Education Department of People's Planning Scheme of Alagappanagar Panchayat and as such she was disqualified under sec.34(1)(g) of the Panchayat Raj Act also. The appellant raised the above objections at the time of scrutiny of nominations. But the above objections were rejected by the Returning Officer. Accordingly the appellant filed O.P. (Election) No.199/2000 before the District Court, Thrissur, for setting aside the election alleging that the 1st respondent was disqualified under sec.30(1) and 34(1)(g) of the Panchayat Raj Act (the Act, for short). The 1st respondent in the counter admitted that she was a teacher of Alagappanagar Panchayat High School. She contended that during 2000-01 no project of the People's Planning Scheme had been entrusted with her and she had no liability to the panchayat. The District Judge, after considering the evidence, held that the 1st respondent had not incurred the disqualification either under sec.30(1) or under sec.34(1)(g) of the Act and accordingly the election petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner has come up in appeal.

3. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the 1st respondent who was working as a teacher in the Alagappanager Panchayat High School managed by the Panchayat was disqualified to contest the election in view of sec.30(1) of the Act. Sec.30(1) reads:

"No officer or employee in the service of the State or Central Government or of a local authority or a corporation controlled by the State or Central Government or of a local authority or any company in which the State or Central Government or a local authority not less than fifty one percent share or of a Statutory Board or of any University in the State shall be qualified for election or for holding office as a member of a Panchayat at any level".

In view of sec.30(1) no officer or employee in the service of the State or the Central Government or of a local authority or of a Corporation was qualified or entitled to contest the election as a candidate. Admittedly the 1st respondent was not an officer or an employee of the State service or in the service of the Central Government. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the 1st respondent was an employee of the local authority viz. the Panchayat and as such she was not entitled to contest the election and was disqualified to contest under sec.30(1) of the Act. Admittedly the Panchayat was running a school and the 1st respondent was a teacher working in the school. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the teacher working in the school managed by the Panchayat was not an employee in the service of the Panhcayat though the Panchayat was the educational agency running the school. The Panchayat was running the school in accordance with the Kerala Panchayats (Spread of Education) Rules, 1964. Rule 2 of the above Rules permit or authorize the Panchayat to establish and maintain schools for providing facilities for spreading education within the Panchaya