( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a judgment of our brother Nigam dismissing the appellants petition for certiorari for the quashing of an order passed by a Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act setting aside the appellants election as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha on the ground that he held an office of profit under the Central Government. It is not in dispute that the appellant is an extra departmental branch post master and that post master and branch post masters are appointed by the Central Government. The appellant is paid not a salary but a monthly allowance of Rs. 15/-, dearness allowance of Rs. 12/- per month and a delivery allowance of Rs. 5/- per month. He contested the election for the office of Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha with respondent No. 1. There was no opposition to his being nominated as a candidate for the election though Section 5-A of the Act lays down that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen, or nominated to and for holding any office in a Goan sabha if he "holds any office of profit under the Central Government". The election took place and the appellant was declared duly elected as Pradhan because he secured the majority of votes. The respondent filed an election petition to challenge the election on the ground that on account of his being an extra departmental branch post-master he held an office of of profit under the Central Government and was, therefore, disqualified for being chosen and nominated for the office of Pradhan in the Gaon Sabha. The Sub-Divisional Officer accepted the respondents contention, set aside the appellants election and declared the respondent as duly elected in his place. The appellant then applied to our brother Nigam for certiorari for the quashing of the Sub-Divisional Officers order on the ground that his view that he held an office of profit within the meaning of Section 5-A was erroneous but our learned brother confirmed the view taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer and dismissed the petition.

( 2 ) SRI R. B. Bisaria cited several decisions such as Ch. Venkata Swamy v. Supdt. Post Offices ganjam Division Berhampur, AIR 1957 Orissa 112 Subbarayulu v. Supdt. of Post Offices, tanjore Division, AIR 1961 Mad 166 and Satya Deo Bushahri v. Padam Dev, 6 Ele LR 414 (Ele. Tri. Simla) which laid down that an extra departmental branch post-master is not a member of a civil service and does not hold a civil post under the Union within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. An extra departmental branch postmaster may not be a civil servant or be holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311, or may not be a Government servant but it does not follow that he does not hold an office, or an office of profit, under the Central government. It was stated in these decisions that extra departmental branch post-masters are mere agents of government and not civil servants. We were also referred to Dinabandhu Sahu v. Jadumoni mangaraj, AIR 1954 SC 411 where it was observed that it might be urged with some reason that such branch post-masters are not Government servants. On the contrary it was held by Dhavan, J. , in Sadho Singh v. S. D. O. Jalalabad, AIR 1959 All 696 that such a branch post-master holds an office of profit under the Central Government. It may, however, be admitted that Bhavan, J. , has not discussed the question whether such a branch postmaster holds an office and whether it is an office of profit under the Central Government, because there was no dispute on these points before him. What was contended before him was that because the branch post-master had sent his resignation just a day before he was nominated he had ceased to hold an office of profit within the meaning of Section 5-A of the Act on the date of his nomination and this contention was repelled by our learned brother. It cannot be disputed that he was of the opinion that such a branch post-master holds an office of profit under the central Government beca