( 1 ) THE petitioner was a candidate at an election held to elect the Pradhan of village Chaujeetpur rangwa. The other candidates were respondents Nos. 3 to 5. The petitioners nomination paper was on scrutiny rejected on the ground that he had been a government servant and was dismissed from service on the ground of misconduct. The misconduct that was attributed to him was that he had enticed away a woman. The respondent No. 3 was declared elected at the election which was held on 19th December, 1955. The petitioner thereupon filed an election petition which was dismissed. In the election petition he had raised the plea that his nomination paper had been improperly rejected because he was not a government servant and did not fall within the provisions of 6. 5-A (d) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. Thereafter the present writ petition was filed in this Court.

( 2 ) THE only question for decision in the case is whether the petitioner who was a Mukhia Was in the service of a State Government, the Central Government, a local authority or a Nyaya panchayat. It cannot be denied that the petitioner would be guilty of misconduct inasmuch as he was removed for having enticed a woman who was not his married wife. Therefore the only question that remains is whether he was in the service of any of the authorities mentioned in clause (d) of Section 5-A.

( 3 ) A Mukhia is appointed by the District Magistrate under Section 45 (3) of the Code of Criminal procedure which runs as follows:

"subject to rules in this behalf to be made by the State Government, the District Magistrate or sub-divisional Magistrate may from time to time appoint one or more persons with his or their consent to perform the duties of a village-headman under this section whether a village-headman has or has not been appointed for that village under any other law".

( 4 ) THIS section would show that there is no statutory provision for a particular number of mukhias to be appointed in a particular Tillage, nor is it necessary under the law that a Mukhia should necessarily be appointed in every village. It is the sole discretion of the District magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate, as the case may be, whether or not to appoint a mukhia and if so to appoint one or more Mukhias as they like. In other words the office of Mukhia though recognized by law can only be created by an order passed either by the District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate and it is not a statutory post in the sense that a Mukhia has got to be appointed for every village or that a village cannot do without a Mukhia. It is also well known that a Mukhia receives no remuneration for the services rendered by him. The duties of the Mukhia are also not well defined. He does not hold a whole-time job. No disciplinary proceedings can be taken against him. Under the provisions of Section 45 of the code of Criminal Procedure he is required to communicate to the nearest Magistrate or to the officer in charge of the nearest police station certain matters which are mentioned In Clauses (a)to (f) of Sub-section (1) of that section. In other words the Mukhia is required under the law to convey to the officers mentioned in Section 45 the permanent or temporary residence of any notorious, receiver or vendor of stolen property and to inform them if there is any person reasonably suspected of being a "thug" robber, escaped convict of proclaimed offender who lives within his jurisdiction. He has also to convey to the authorities mentioned above the commission of, or intention to commit, any non-bailable offence or any offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147 or 148 of the Indian Penal Code. He should also inform of any unnatural death that takes place in the village and also of the likelihood of the commission of the several offences which are mentioned in Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 45, Cr. P. C. Lastly he has to convey information in respect of matters relating to the mai