R.L. Anand, J. - This order disposes of issues No. 6 and 7 framed by this Court on 28.3.2001 in Election Petition No. 4 of 2000 titled Harsh Kumar v. Bhagwan Sahai Rawat and others. These issues are to the following effect :-

"6. Whether the petitioner has not filed any legal and valid affidavit in support of the election petition, if so, its effect ? OPR

7. Whether the election petition lacks material facts and particulars and does not disclose any cause of action ? OPR"

2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties involving under these issues, the following facts can be noticed :-

General Elections to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha 2000 were notified on 10.1.2000. The last date for filing the nomination papers was 3.2.2000. The date of polling was 22.2.2000 and counting of votes took place on 25.2.2000. In this case challenge has been given to the candidature of returned candidate Bhagwan Sahai Rawat by petitioner Harsh Kumar from 56-Hathin Assembly constituency. Respondent No. 1 was declared successful by a margin of 1400 and odd votes. It is alleged by the petitioner that returned candidate started claiming in the constituency in public/corner meetings that he would provide employment to the voters who are unemployed in the constituency in case they give their votes in lieu thereof. He also declared in the constituency that he is in touch with the Government and persuading the Government to issue the necessary advertisements for various categories of posts so that all unemployed voters having different qualifications would be included in Government/Boards/Corporations. He asked unemployed youth to give their bio- data to him so that he could help them in getting the Government jobs. He promised the unemployed youth the services in lieu of their votes and support in the election in question. All these promises were made by respondent No. 1 in the constituency after 7.1.2000. Consequently good response was given by those who were in dire necessity of jobs. According to the petitioner, it is a violation of Mode Code of Conduct. It is so stated in para No. 7 of the election petition. It is also alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 declared in the constituency that he was in touch with the high-ups in the Government. He was successful in his design as a result of which 297 posts of various categories were advertised by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, 1026 posts were advertised by Haryana Staff Selection Commission and 4600 posts of Constables were advertised. All this has been done at his behest by the Government. He further claimed that he was very close to the Chief Minister and the advertisements, which were made at the behest of respondent No. 1, is in violation of Model Code of Conduct because it had allured the unemployed youth of the constituency. Now it is the policy of the Government to ban the recruitments in the State of Haryana. Resultantly, the alleged promises made by respondent No. 1 were only made with a calculated design to allure the unemployed voters for the success of India National Lok Dal party in the State of Haryana. This is the allegation of the petitioner in the election petition as contained in para No. 8. In para No. 9 with sub- paras (i) to (v) it is alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 has committed the corrupt practice of bribery as defined in Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter called the Act). Elaborating the particulars of corrupt practice it is alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 distributed the pamphlets of advertisements through out the constituency during his election campaign/corner meetings to unemployed voters. Further elaborating the petitioner alleged that respondent No. 1 accompanied by his supporters and active workers namely Ram Parshad, Sarpanch of village Bahin, Randhir Singh, Chairman of Hindi Sahitaya Academy, Haryana, Sati Ram, resident of village Bhangur, Net Ram of village