( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Joti Prasad Upadyaya under Section 116-A of the Representation of the people Act against the order of the Tribunal dismissing the election petition moved by him under section 81 of the Act calling in question the election of Kalka Prasad Bhatnagar, respondent No. 1, as member of the U. P. Legislative Council from the U. P. (West) Graduates Constituency. The election was held in the year 1960 to fill in two vacancies, The appellant and respondent No. 1 along with three others were candidates for election to the vacancies; and Kalka Prasad bhatnagar, respondent No. 1, and Shyamanarayana, respondent No. 2, were duly elected having secured the maximum number of votes.

( 2 ) THE election of Kalka Prasad Bhatnagar alone is challenged on the ground that he was holding an office of profit under the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh (to he referred hereinafter as the State Government), and under Article 191 of the Constitution of India was disqualified to be chosen to fill in the seat.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case are not in dispute, and the only controversy that exists is whether respondent No. 1 suffered from the disqualification and could not be chosen as a member of the u. P. Legislative Council.

( 4 ) KALKA Prasad Bhatnagar, respondent No. 1, was appointed by the Chancellor under Section 9 of the Agra University Act 1926, as the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Agra, and he held this office on the date of nomination and also on the date of election to the U. P. Legislative council. The office of the Vice-Chancellor was and is a whole time job carrying a salary of Rs. 2,000/-per month and a furnished house, or in lieu thereof Rs. 200/- per month as house allowance. Under Section 8 of the Agra University Act, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is the chancellor of the University. As the appointment was made by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, though in his capacity as the Chancellor of the University, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that respondent No. 1 held the office of profit under the State Government. Respondent no. 1, on the other hand, contends that he held the office under the University of Agra, and not under the State Government.

( 5 ) THE only point for consideration is whether, in the eye of law, respondent No. 1 held the office of profit under the State Government. An opinion on this point can be recorded on appreciation of the provisions of the Agra University Act and also of the Constitution of India.

( 6 ) BEFORE the Tribunal the appellant had placed reliance unon the U. P. State Legislature members (Prevention of Disqualification) (Supplementary) (Amendment) Act, 1960 (U. P. Act no. 5 of 1960), whereby Clause (b) of Section 2 of the U. P. State Legislature Members (Prevention of Disqualification (Supplementary) Act, 1956 was deleted; and it was contended that the intention of the U. P. Legislature was to disqualify the holders of the offices of vice-Chancellors of Universities established by law in India from being chosen as members of the U. P. Legislature. This point was raised half-heartedly before us. The object and reasons of an enactment and also the report of the legislative proceeding can be used for a restricted purpose, and not to lay down the scope of an enactment duly passed by the Legislature. The intention of the Legislature is invariably determined from the wording of the enactment itself, and not from the speeches made at the floor of the House, or the opinion that the Legislature may have otherwise expressed. The Amendment Act of 1960 does not contain any clause which may suggest why Clause (b) of section 2 of the Act of 1956 was being deleted. Whatever may have been in the mind of the legislature, the enactment merely shows that the office of Vice-Chancellor of an University was not considered to be an office about which the Legislature may specifically remove the disqualification, if any, When tile U. P. Legislature made no provision for the rem