Chattisgarh Gazette - Weekly, No. 30, Part 1, 29 July 2022

ँध्र् ी "{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न्ध्॰ीं्रय्ध्र््‌िध्ूर्अिग.ूर्अ्रिण्" "प्रष्ँॉर् ीैन् ऽह्मई्रय्ई त्र्र्न्ी र्५ीीं} ्र॰ झ्ीं्रर्ईी ;प्रर्ष्ी त्र्र्न्ी प्रन्न्द्ध ऽर्ह्यी २न्ईीं ऽींईण् र् ी ँध्ण् ू.ूू.{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् ्रँन्न्ध्गद्व प्रॉण् ॉण् प्रझ्र्९ी"य्ए प्रर्॰ी गर्.्रि.ूर्र्अििण्" {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँी

र्ीर्प्रीन् ॉर् ीप्रर्५ीई

र्ी गर् ि, र्न्ीींन्ए र्र्५ीींीन्ए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्र्र्ूिूीीर्ह्यी द्यए र्५ी अ्‌लल

प्रऽॉट्टध्

र्झ्ी्र गण्;अद्ध प्रर्र्क्कीी र्ऽीभन् प्रप्र ॉर्ट्टीए ;ूद्धर् ॉीप्रऊध्

ॉर्ट्टीण्

र्झ्ी्र अण्;अद्ध र्न्ीझ् र्र्५ीीॉ र्ऽी॰र्५ीए ;ूद्ध प्रर्झ्ी्रर् ींीञ र्ऽी॰र्५ीए ;गद्ध न्ट्ठ र्र्ह्मीी९ र्ऽी॰र्५ी र्ऽीभन् ऽप्रॉर्ट्टीए ;लद्ध र्न्ीझ् र्र्५ीीॉ ॉ}ए ;्रद्ध र्झ्ीन्ई र्र्५ीीॉ र्ऽी॰र्५ी र्ऽीभन् ऽप्रॉर्ट्टीए ;क्ष्द्ध र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्रए र्झ्ीन्ई ध् ऽप्रॉर्ट्टीए ;द्यद्ध र्९ी.र्झ्ीर्ऽी प्रन्प्रर्५ीब्ड्ढन्ण्

र्झ्ी्र लण्;द्ध ;अद्ध {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् प्रए ;ूद्ध न् ॉप्रप्रई प्रई॰ए ;गद्ध ॉॉ॰ ञ ींन्र्—ैीप्रई प्रए ;द्ध ;अद्ध ऽर्क्ती॰र्५ीए ;ूद्ध {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् ऽप्रप्रए ;गद्ध ॉॉ॰ड्ढ ऽप्रप्रए ;्रद्ध ;अद्धर् ीड प्रए ;ूद्ध ऽप्रई प्रण् र्झ्ी्र ूर्ण्ैीध् र्प्री ध् ऽप्रॉर्ट्टीण्

र्झ्ी्र 1

र्न्ीद्द र्र्५ीीॉ र्ऽी॰र्५ी

ॉर्र्ीीह्म र्र्५ीीॉ प्रर्झ्ी्र

र्र्ीी९ए २र्न्ी॰ध् झ्एर् ी र्न्ीींन्ए ऽन्९ ्र

र्ी र्न्ीींन्ए ऽन्९ ्रन् प्रर्॰ी ूल ँट्ट ूर्ूिू

र्ीञ "य्न् अ.र्गिध्ूर्ूिूध्.ूण्र्न्ीद्द र्र्५ीीॉ ई॰र्उीर्न्ीर् ीध् "य्न्प्र९ ९र्त्र्ीए र्झ्ीण्ण्ॉण् ;ूर्र्गििद्धए ॉप्रए र्९ी र्र्ऽीी्रए र्न्ीींन्र् ी र्ऽैीध् ड ॉ र्ऽीर््रीध् र्ऽी॰र्५ी य्ह्मई ॉप्रए {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्५ीीॉ ॰ न् ॰ै न्र्ईी २भन्ण्

ूण् र्ीध् ॉींर्र्क्तीीन् र्९ीए र्झ्ीण्ण्ॉण् ;ूर्अिूद्धए ॉर्ञी९ए र्र््रीीर्सी्र र्ईी ऽप्रईप्रन्घई र्झ्ीन् ष्ञर्क्ती ॉर्ञी९ए {न्ण््रण् २न्ैईप्रर्५ी} र्प्रीॉ र्ष्ीत्र्य्न् ञ ष्ञर्क्ती ॉर्ञी९ए {न्ण््रण्र् ीन्ध्र्९ी र्ष्ीत्र्य्न्ए ष्ञर्क्ती ॉर्ञी९ए {न्ण््रण् २र्न्ीन्र्र्र्ीिंी र्प्रीॉ ञ प्रर्ह्यी ॉञर्र्ीिंर् ीय्प्र॰ईए र्न्ीींन्र् ी र्ऽैीध् ड ॉ र्ऽीर््रीध् र्ऽी॰र्५ी य्ह्मई ॉप्रए र्९ी र्र्ऽीी्रए र्न्ीींन् ॰ न् ॰ै न्र्ईी २भन्ण्

अअ्‌ग

ॉर्ी९ए ीं]र्ह्यी र्ईी ९र् ॉी्रध्ए {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्उीर्न्ी र्र्५ीीॉध्र्र् ीीध् ीं]र्र्ह्यीी९ए र्र्न्ीँी॰र््री ॉ ींप्र]ई र्ईीर् ीप्रर्५ीईूर्ूिूण्{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू ख् र्झ्ी्र अ 1194 र्ीध् ॉींर्र्क्तीीन् र्९ी र्उीर्न्ीर् ीय्र्झ्ीन् ्र२न्र्ह्यी न् प्रर्॰ीञ ॉ र्न्ीद्द र्र्५ीीॉए र्झ्ीन्ईध् र्र्५ीीॉप्रर् ॉी ;ईद्ध प्रए ूर्अिक्ष् प्र. अू ई२न्ई ॉप्रए र्९ी र्र्ऽीी्र ऽॉञ्रध्य् ॰र् ी प्रईक्र्न्ी ञ प्रँट्टर्॰ीन्ध् ञ र्झ्ीन्ईध् र्र्५ीीॉप्रर् ॉी प्रक्न् र्र्५ीीॉप्र र्ईी ॉञ्रध्य् ॰ र् ॉी र्र्र्ीिंीप्रऽई न्र्ईी २भन्ण्

{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्न्ीर्द्दी९ र् ी ॉ र्ईी र्ऽी॰र्र्र्५ीीींॉीन्ए

९ध्ई प्रॉञ२न्ए ॉप्रण्

र्ी र्न्ीींन्ए ऽन्९ ्रन् प्रर्॰ी ल ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू

र्ीञ ्र.ूध्ूर्ूिूध् ;अद्धण्र्न्ीद्द र्र्५ीीॉ ई॰र्उीर्न्ीर् ीध् र्ह्मीट्टप्रईय्र् ीध् ॉञँ ऽर््री९ए र्र्ह्मीीप्रर्क्तीप्रईए {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् न्र्ड्डी र्र्ह्मीी९ प्रष्र्९ीॉींन्र् ी प्रर्॰ीञ ूल न्न्ध्ए ूर्ूिू ॉ र्लिर् ीय्ए ूर्ूिू ई ;र््‌ि प्र॰द्ध ञ प्रर्॰ीञ र्द्विर् ीय्ए ूर्ूिू ॉ अद्यर् ीय्ए ूर्ूिू ई ;अर्ि प्र॰द्धर् ी ट्टर्ह्यीय् ई र्र्झ्ीी ॉप्र२न्ई ९र्र्ीिंींट्ठई र्ऽीर्५ी ध्र्र् ीीर्य्ीन् ैध्ट्ठप्रई र्॰ी न्र्ईी २भन्ण्

{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्न्ीर्द्दी९ र् ी ॉ र्ईी र्ऽी॰र्र्र्५ीीींॉीन्ए

ॉञँ ऽर््री९ए ॉञींघई ॉप्रण्

र्ी र्न्ीींन्ए ऽन्९ ्रन् प्रर्॰ी ूअ ँट्ट ूर्ूिू

र्ीञ ष्ध्.अ.ूध्ूर्ूिूध्ध्लण्र्न्ीद्द र्र्५ीीॉ ई॰र्उीर्न्ी प्रट्टप्र९प्रई ऽर्क्तीर्ध्ीध्ई२न्ॉध्९र्॰ीर्न्ीञर् ी र्न्ीद्द र्र्५ीीॉप्रर् ॉी प्रक्न् र्ीर्ह्यीध् र्ईी ञ प्रत्र्न्०न्ध् ९घन्न् ॰ न् ई भप्रन्घॉ ९९ अू ञ र्॰ीह्मई न्ई २ींन्ए न्ह्म२ञन्र् ीय्र्झ्ीन् ्र२न्र्ह्यी न् प्रर्॰ीञ ॉ र्ऽैी"य्न् ड ॉ र्ऽीर््रीध् र्ऽी॰र्५ी ई ध् ॰प्रर्५ीय्ई र्ईीप्रर्९ी ञ न्र् ी ॉट्टींर् ी९ ;लद्ध ञ ॰र्र्५ीीय् र्ऽींॉीन् ॰ै न्र्ईी २भन् —

ण् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध्र् ीर् ी ईर्य्ी र्र्॰ैीी ध् र्र्॰ैीी ;अद्ध ;ूद्ध ;गद्ध

;लद्ध

प्रत्र्न्०न्ध् ९घन्न्ए र्न्ी्र३न्

अण् र्ीध् र्५ीप्रर्र्५ीींीन्र् ीभर्क्तीन्ध् ई२न्ॉध्९र्॰ीन्ए र््रीभश्न्र्९ी.ह्यत्र्र्न्ी.र्न्ी२न्ध् प्रत्र्न्०न्ध् ९घन्न्ए ष्९र्न्ीींन् र्र्न्ीीींँ्रञँ ूण् र्ीध् न्र्५ीर् ींीन्र् ीन् ई२न्ॉध्९र्॰ीन्ए प्रष्र्९ीॉींन् गण् र्ीध् र्न्ीन्ईर् ॉी॰ ॰ींष् ई२न्ॉध्९र्॰ीन्ए र्ष्ीर्९ी॰ प्रत्र्न्०न्ध् ९घन्न्ए ष्र्९ीभर्॰ीर्र्ष्ीँीन्.र्झ्ीर्र्न्ीीर्न्ी लण् र्ीध्र्र् ीीञ॰ ञर्]ी ई२न्ॉध्९र्॰ीन्ए ींञ्र९ध् ्रण् र्ीध् ँ्रईर्न्ी ॉईञन्ँ ई२न्ॉध्९र्॰ीन्ए र्न्ी्र३न् क्ष्ण् र्ीध् ॉींश्न्र्५ीर् ींीन्र् ॉी२ट्टन् ई२न्ॉध्९र्॰ीन्एर् ीन्र्ष्ी द्यण् र्र्न्ीींीन्र् ॉीन् ई२न्ॉध्९र्॰ीन्ए ॰ीं्रय् द्वण् र्ीध्र् ीँर् ींीन्र् ीह्यत्र्न् ई२न्ॉध्९र्॰ीन्ए प्रष्र्९ीॉींन्

प्रत्र्न्०न्ध् ९घन्न्ए ष्ैईन् प्रत्र्न्०न्ध् ९घन्न्ए ॉन्र््रींँी प्रत्र्न्०न्ध् ९घन्न्ए र्ष्ीर्९ी॰ प्रत्र्न्०न्ध् ९घन्न्ए ष्ईर्न्ी प्रत्र्न्०न्ध् ९घन्न्एर् ीन्र्ष्ी

ूण् न्र्न्ीघई र्॰ीह्मप्रर्ईीञ र्॰ी ऽय् ध्र्र् ैीीह्म ऽप्रर्क्ती प्र९ २र्न्ी्रध् र्ईी र्॰ीह्मई ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीप्रर्न्ीञ ध्र् ॉीञ {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्न्ीद्द र्र्५ीीॉप्रर् ॉी ;्रध्य्न्र्ह्यीए झ्ईध्य् र्ईीर् ॉी ध् र्५ीर्ईद्ध प्रए अ्‌द्य्र र् ीर्र्र्क्तीीीञ ऽञई्रय्ई र्र्५ीीप्रॉई २र्न्ी्रध्ण्

गण् न्घई र्ऽी॰र्५ीर् ीध् {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् न्र्ड्डी र्र्ह्मीी९ए प्रष्र्९ीॉींन् ञ र्॰ीन्र् ीर्प्री WP (PIL) NO. 91/2019, S. Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Other's ञर् ीप्रन्ई ऽञप्रई र्ऽी॰र्५ी ऽर्क्तीर्क्तीध् २र्न्ी्रध्ण्

{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्न्ीर्द्दी९ र् ी ॉ र्ईी र्ऽी॰र्र्र्५ीीींॉीन्ए

घ९ह्मन्र्ध्ी ९र्त्र्ीए ऽन् ॉप्रण्र्झ्ी्र अ , {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू 1195 र्न्ीैँ प्रर्झ्ी्र र्र्ीीय्९ए ९घन्न्ए प्रँर्९ी र्न्ी्र३न्न्ए {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् ॰ न्.ॉप्रए {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्५ीीॉए र्न्ीैँ ञ र्ऽीर्॰ी ष्ञर्क्ती प्रर्झ्ी्र

र्न्ी्र३न्ए प्रर्॰ीञ गर् िँट्ट ूर्ूिू

झ्ट्ट.ऽँय् ;ट्टन्द्ध ण् ण् र्द्यिध्ऽ.द्वूध्ूर्अि्‌.ूर्ण्झ्ट्टि.ऽँय् न्र्ह्यी ञ २र्न्ीष्ञर्क्ती न्ध्ध्ॉध् ईर्९ी"य्र्न्ी९ध्र् ी९र् ी"य्न्प्रञ्र प्रर्र्न्ीँी र्र्ीिंन्र्र्र्ीिंीर्त्र्ी र्उीर्न्ी र््री.ष्र्त्र्ी९ए ण्२न्ण्ञण्.गर्एि ई२न्ॉध्९र् ींॉीभन् प्रँर्९ी.र्न्ी्र३न्ए ध् प्रँध् झ्ट्टप्र ीं९ न्र्ष्ी लण््रग्र २न्ण् न्ध्ध्ॉध् ईर्९ी"य्र्न्ी९ध्र् ी९ र्ी"य्न्प्रञ्र प्रर्र्न्ीँी श्न्९ र्९ी"य्न् २न्ईीं झ्ट्ट.ऽँय् ैईींई ैर्ईी र्ऽीर्र्क्तीीन् न् झ्ट्ट.ऽँय् ऽप्रर्क्तीप्र ई२न्ई र्र्क्तीीर्न्ी.अअ;अद्ध ध् ऽप्रर्क्तीॉर्ट्टी र्ईी र्र्क्तीीर्न्ी.अ्‌ ध् ऽप्रर्क्तीॉर्ट्टीर् ीर् ीर्५ीर् ीर्र्र्क्तीीीञ र्ऽींॉीन् र्प्रीर् ँीन् {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँी ञ र्५ी— प्रर्॰ीञ र्लि.र्क्ष्.िूर्ूिअ र्ईी प्रर्॰ीञ र्अि. अर्.िूर्ूिअर् ी र्र्न्ीी र््री २भन्ण्

ट्टञप्र ऽष् २र्न्ीष्ञर्क्ती न्ध्ध्ॉध् ईर्९ी"य्र्न्ी९ध्र् ी९र् ी"य्न्प्रञ्र प्रर्र्न्ीँी र्र्ीिंन्र्र्र्ीिंीर्त्र्ी र्उीर्न्ी झ्ट्ट.ऽँय् ध्र् ीर्य्ी२न्ध् २न्ईीं ॉप्रट्टप्र९ई न्घई झ्ट्टप्र ॉ ीं९ ॉर्न्ी र्द्यि ञ ॉ ीं९ न्र्ष्ी र्ण्गि्‌ू २न्ण् झ्ट्टप्र श्न्९ र्९ी"य्न् ञ र्झ्ीप्रई २न्ध्ञ २र्न्ी ९ैड झ्ट्ट.ऽँय् ध्र् ीर्य्ी२न्ध् ॉ ींघई न् ऽींर्न्ीर्क्ती न् झ्ट्ट.ऽँय् ऽप्रर्क्तीप्र ध् र्र्क्तीीर्न्ी.्‌ग ;अद्ध र्ऽींॉीन् र्ह्नीेन्र्ह्यी र्प्रीर् ँीर्ईी २भन्ण्

अण् र्ह्नीेन्र्ह्यी २न्ईीं झ्ट्टप्रर् ी प्रन्र्ह्यी —

र््री.ष्र्त्र्ी९ए ण्२न्ण्ञण् . गर्ि

ण् ण् ञण् न्र्ष्ी २न्ण्

;अद्ध ;ूद्ध ;गद्ध

अण् गर्द्यिध््र र्ण्र्अििल

ूण् गर््‌िध्अ र्ण्अ्रिग

गण् ूलद्यध्अ र्ण्र्द्विि्‌

लण् ूूर्ध्अि र्ण्र्गििू

्रण् गर्द्यिध्अ र्ण्र्अििक्ष्

क्ष्ण् ूलद्वध्ू र्ण्र्ूििद्व

द्यण् ूलक्ष् र्ण्र्क्ष्र्ििि

ीं९ र्ण्गि्‌ू

ूण् झ्ट्ट.ऽँय् ध्र् ीर्य्ी२न्ध् ॉ ींघई प्रर् ँी न्२न् झ्ट्टप्रर् ी र्न्नीभर्न्ी ऽींप्रर्झ्ी्रध् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध् ;र्न्ीैँद्धए र्न्ी्र३न् र्र्र् ीी९ ञ र्॰ीर् ँी ॉर्ईी २भन्ण्

{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्न्ीर्द्दी९ र् ी ॉ र्ईी र्ऽी॰र्र्र्५ीीींॉीन्ए

झ्ध् प्रॉञ२न्न्ए ९घन्न् ञ ॰ न्.ॉप्रण्{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू ख् र्झ्ी्र अ 1196

प्रर्झ्ी्रर् ींीञ र्ऽी॰र्५ी

र्र्ीीय्९ ऽींप्रर्झ्ी्रध् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध् ;र्न्ीण्द्ध त्र्र्न्ीञ्रन्र््रीञए प्रँर्९ी.र्र्न्ीँीञ॰र््रीञ ;{न्ण््रण्द्ध

त्र्र्न्ीञ्रन्र््रीञए प्रर्॰ीञ ूग "य्न् ूर्ूिू

र्न्ीैँ ऽींट्ठर्प्रीर् ी

न्र्ह्यीर् ीञ ूर्ूिअअअर््‌िूर्र्र्र्र्अििििि ष्ध्अूअ ऽय् ूर्ूिर्.िूअ

र्ीञध्अगू्‌ध्.अध्ऽण्प्रण्ऽण्ध्ूर्ूिूण्न्र्ह्यी ऽींप्रर्झ्ी्रध् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध् त्र्र्न्ीञ्रन्र््रीञ ॉर् ी०ई न्र्ह्यीर् ी ऽर्९ी र्प्रीण् र्ऽी॰्रर्ह्यीर्र् ॉीॉी ञ ऽह्म र्र््रीीॉध् र््रीर् ॉी}२न्र्न्ीर्९ीए ई२न्ॉध्९ {ींन्प्रर्न्ीए प्रँर्९ी र्र्न्ीँीञ॰र््रीञ र्उीर्न्ी र््रीर् ॉी}२न्र्न्ीर्९ीर् ी र्न्ीैँ र््री र्ी र्॰ँीय् र्॰ी न् र्ष्ीष्ई ९घन्न् २र्न्ी॰ र् ॉी र्ऽी॰ ैईींई र्प्री र््री २भन् ;ईर्य्ी ञर् ॉी}२न्र्न्ीर्९ीए र््री र््रीत्र्र्९ी२न्ध्र् ी र्झ्ी्र २भन्द्धर् ँी र्र्ीीय्९ध् र्र्क्कीीर् ीञध्गलद्वक्ष्ध्झ्ट्टण्ऽण्ध्ॉण्ऽण्झ्ट्टण्ऽण्ध्ूर्ूिअ र्र्न्ीँीञ॰र््रीञ प्रर्॰ीञ र्क्ष्.िअर्.िूर्ूिअ र् ीक्त ॉ र्ऽी५र् ीर्य्ी२न्ध् २न्ईीं ऽींप्रर्झ्ी्रध् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध् ;र्न्ीण्द्ध त्र्र्न्ीञ्रन्र््रीञर् ी प्रऽई र्प्रीण्

न्घई ॉञष्ञर्क्ती ञ ऽींप्रर्झ्ी्रध् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध् ;र्न्ीण्द्ध त्र्र्न्ीञ्रन्र््रीञ ॉ र्र्क्कीी र्;ँीञ प्रई॰द्धर् ी०ई र्प्री र््रीण् ऽींप्रर्झ्ी्रध् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध् ;र्न्ीण्द्ध त्र्र्न्ीञ्रन्र््रीञ र्उीर्न्ीर् ी०ईर् ीर् ीञ अअअध्ण्.अध्ऽण्प्रण्ऽण्ध्ूर्ूिू त्र्र्न्ीञ्रन्र््रीञ र्द्यि.र्अि.ूर्ूिू ञ न्}९ र्प्री र््री २भन्ए प्रर् ीष् ई२न्ॉध्९र्॰ीन् ींद्दँध् र्ट्ठी {ींन्प्रर्न्ी र्उीर्न्ी न्र्ह्यी ॰ँय् न् न्॰र्र्र्ीिंीऽर्र्ह्यीीर् ीर् ीर्५ी र्र्न्ीी र््रीए प्रईर् ॉीप्रर्क्ती ञर् ी"य्न् र्ऽीर्प्रीर् ी०ई २न्ध्ञ २ींन्र्ऽीण् न्घई ॉञष्ञर्क्ती ञ र््री र्ञीई र््रीत्र्र्९ी२न्ध् ॉ ैर्ईीर् ी०ई र्प्री र््रीण् र््री र्ञीई र््रीत्र्र्९ी२न्ध् र्उीर्न्ी र््री र्ञीई र््रीत्र्न्र्९ी२न्ध् र्न्ीर्९ीर् ॉी}२न्र्न्ीर्९ीर् ी र्न्ीैँ र््रीर् ी र्॰ँीय् र्॰ी र्प्रीर् ँी ॉय् ॉट्टप्रई ॉ प्रर्॰ीञ र्ूि.अर्.िूर्ूिअ ैर्ईीर् ीञ र्गिर् ीप्रन्ई र्प्री र््री २भन्ण् र्न्ीैँ प्रन्र्ध्ी ञ २न्र्}ी र्न्ीन्ध् ॉ प्रष्ह्मर्॰ींीन्र् ँीञ प्रई॰ ञर्र््रीी र््रीर् ँी प्रर्र्ट्टीींॉीन् २भन् —

ण्

प्रन्र्ह्यी ट्ट९ र््री प्रर्झ्ीँ न्र्न्ीञई ैर्ईीप्रई र््री

र््रीत्र्र्९ी२न्ध् र््रीत्र्र्९ी२न्ध् ॉर्ी}२न्र्न्ीर्९ी ;अद्ध ;ूद्ध ;गद्ध ;लद्ध ;्रद्ध अण् ऽय् ूर्अिअ ध् ँ्रर्र्ह्यीी र्ऽींॉीन् ँॉञर्ऊी अ्रद्व्र ्‌्‌ू ्र्‌ग ूण् ीं९र् ीईर्॰ीर्न्ीञ ध् ॉञर्ऊी

ललअ गगअ अअर्ि गण् ीं९ ॉर्न्ी ञष्न्

अअर्द्वि क्ष््‌अ लअद्य लण् ीं९ न्र्ष्ी ;र्झ्ीभर््रीप्र९र्र् ीी९द्ध २न्ण् क्ष्अूण्क्ष्द्यू गलअण्अगअ ूद्यअण््रलअ ्रण् ष्र्ट्टँी न्र्ष्ी २न्ण्

ल्र्‌ण्अक्ष््र ूक्ष््‌ण््‌र््रि अद्व्‌ण्ूक्ष्र्ि क्ष्ण् ्रभन् ष्र्ट्टँी न्र्ष्ी २न्ण्

अ्रगण््रर्द्यि द्यअण्ूूक्ष् द्वूण्ूद्वअ द्यण् र्न्ी"य्न् न्र्ष्ी २न्ण्

अर्द्विण््रर्र्िि लूण्अूग क्ष्क्ष्ण्गद्यद्य द्वण् प्रॉञप्रई न्र्ष्ी २न्ण्

अ्‌ण्ूलक्ष् अक्ष्ण्र्र्ूिि गण्ूलल ्‌ण् ऽप्रॉञप्रई न्र्ष्ी २न्ण्

लर्ूिण्ू्रअ ूलर्ण्क्ष्अिक्ष् अक्ष्अण्क्ष्ग्र अर्ण्ि ीं९ झ्ट्ट.र्न्ीैँ

क्ष्र्द्यि गक्ष्ग ूलल अअण् र्५ीींर्ऽी ध् ॉञर्ऊी

गअग ूर्लि अर््‌ि अूण् र््री र्ञीई झ्

अ अ र्ि अगण् र्र्५ीीॉध् २न्त्र्न्ञ

अद्य ्‌ द्व अलण् र्र्५ीीॉध् ींञर्ऽी

ू अ अ अ्रण् र्र्५ीीॉध् र्ईीर्९ीष्

्र ग ू अक्ष्ण् प्रँध् र्ईीर्९ीष्

र्ि र्ि र्ि अद्यण् प्रँध् ींञर्ऽी

्र ल अर्झ्ी्र अ , {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू 1197 ;अद्ध ;ूद्ध ;गद्ध ;लद्ध ;्रद्ध अद्वण् र्५ीर्र्५ीी र्र्र्ीिंीन्

ू अ अ अ्‌ण् प्रष्ैर्ईी

र्ि र्ि र्ि ूर्ण्ि र्ीप्र र्र्५ीीर्९ी

ू अ अ ूअण् ट्टय्र् ीक्तण् र्र्५ीीर्९ी

अ अ र्ि ूूण् २र्न्ी"य्न्ैट्ट९

अ अ र्ि ूगण् न्र् ैीैहृ ह्म]

अ अ र्ि ूलण् र्ऽीञ्रर्ष्ीत्र्ध्

ग ू अ ू्रण् र्र्ष्ीँीन्

ष्ींर्र्क्तीीन्

ूक्ष्ण् र्ीर्र्ईीीई

ॉींप्रर्र्क्तीी २भन्

ूद्यण् ींऊ न्र्ह्नी॰

र्र्क्तीी र्र्क्तीी र्र्क्तीी ूद्वण् र्ऽीर्ष्ी॰ध्र् ी न्र्ष्ी

लण्क्ष्द्व्र गण्लद्यक्ष् अण्ूर््‌ि ू्‌ण् ीं९ प्रर्न्ीन् ध् ॉञर्ऊी

ू्‌ू अद्वर्ि अअू गर्ण्ि र्र्न्ीँीञ॰र््रीञ ॉ ॰ट्टन्ध् लर् िप्रध् लू प्रध् गअण् र््रीर् ीर्न्ीन्

र्ि र्ि र्ि ऽींप्रर्झ्ी्रध् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध् ;र्न्ीण्द्ध त्र्र्न्ीञ्रन्र््रीञ ॉर् ी०ई न्प्रॉञ्र घर्९ी घर्र्५ीी र्ऽींॉीन् ैर्ईीप्रई ध् र्न्ीैँ र््रीर् ॉी}२न्र्न्ीर्९ी ध्र् ीभ२न्॰॰ध् प्रर्र्ट्टीींॉीन् २भन् —

र्न्ीन् ञ र््री र््रीत्र्न्र्९ी२न्ध् ॰र्प्रीर्ह्यी ञ ँञ्र९ ॉर्न्ीन् ट्टय् ञ र््रीर् ीॉट्टर्९ॉी प्र५ ञ र््री ष्त्र्र््री

ैर्ईीप्रई ध् र्न्ीैँ र््रीर् ॉी}२न्र्न्ीर्९ी ध् ॉर्ध्ीर् ी न्प्रॉञ्र घर्९ी घर्र्५ीी ञ र्९ी९र् ैी२न्ध् ॉ र्ईी र््री र््रीत्र्न्र्९ी२न्ध् र्५ीऽ ॉर्ध्ी र्झ्ी्र र्ी २न्श्न्र् ैी२न्ध् ॉ प्रह्म२र्न्ीञप्रई र्प्री र््री २भन्ण्

न्घई ईर्हृीञ र्ऽीर्र्क्तीीन् न् ऽींप्रर्झ्ी्रध् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध् ;र्न्ीण्द्ध त्र्र्न्ीञ्रन्र््रीञ र्उीर्न्ी प्रईप्र॰ई र्प्री र््री २भन्ए प्र र््रीर् ॉी}२न्र्न्ीर्९ीर् ी र््रीत्र्र्९ी२न्ध् ॉ ऽप्रँय्ई न्र् ी र्न्ीैँ र््री र्र्र्ीिंीप्रऽईर्र् ँीी न्प्रई २र्न्ीर््रीण्

{न्ण््रण् झ्ट्ट.र्न्ीैँ ॉञप्र२न्र्ईी अ्‌्र्‌ ध् र्र्क्तीीर्न्ी क्ष्द्वए द्यग ऽञई्रय्ई र्र््रीीञर् ी प्रर्झ्ीप्रँई ञ ॉर्ञीप्रँई प्रर् ँीर् ी ष्ञर्॰ीष्ैई ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध्र् ी र्ी०ई २भन्ण् ॉञप्र२न्र्ईी ध् र्र्क्तीीर्न्ी ्‌र्.ि्‌अ ई२न्ई ष्ञर्॰ीष्ैई ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध् ध् ॉैई र्५ीप्रघर्ईीञ र्न्ीैँ ॉर्य्ीर्ह्यी ष्ञ॰ २र्न्ीर् ँी ॉ ९घन्न्र् ी र्॰ी २भन्ण् ईर्य्ी ञ र्न्ीैँ ॉर्य्ीर्ह्यी ष्ञ॰ २र्न्ी ॉ {न्ण््रण् झ्ट्ट.र्न्ीैँ ॉञप्र२न्र्ईी ध् र्र्क्तीीर्न्ी ्‌र्एि ॉ२न्प्रन्ई र्र्क्तीीर्न्ी द्यग ऽञई्रय्ई र्ष्ी र्प्रीञ ई२न्ई र््रीर् ॉी}२न्र्न्ीर्९ीए ई२न्ॉध्९ {ींन्प्रर्न्ीर् ी र्प्रीॉ प्रैर्ईीन् ध् ॰ट्ठप्रब्न् र्ईी ॰ट्ठब्र्न्ीर्र् ीीर्ईी २र्न्ी ॉ र््रीर् ॉी}२न्र्न्ीर्९ीए ई२न्ॉध्९ {ींन्प्रर्न्ीर् ी र्न्ीैँ र््री र्र्र्ीिंीप्रऽई र्प्रीर् ँीर्ईी २भन्ण्

न्र्ह्यी ऽींप्रर्झ्ी्रध् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध् ;र्न्ीण्द्ध त्र्र्न्ीञ्रन्र््रीञ ध् र्ऽीन् र्ऽी॰र्५ी र्प्रीह्म ञर् ी९ २न्ईीं प्रऽई र्प्रीर् ँीण्

र्ईीन्र् ीर्५ी प्रॉह्म२र्न्ीन्ए ९घन्न्ण्{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू ख् र्झ्ी्र अ 1198 र्र्ीीय्९ ींऊ र्प्रीय् र्॰ीर्प्रीन्ध्ए {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्र्५ीीैीध्र् ीभए ींर्र्न्ीीन्र्र् ीी९ प्रन्ॉन्ए र्न्ीींन्

र्न्ीींन्ए प्रर्॰ीञ द्यर् ीय् ूर्ूिू

र्ीण्.अद्वध्र्गिध्र्प्रीय्र् ीर्प्रीध्ूर्अि्‌.ूूण्र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्रए "य् प्र॰}९ध् र्उीर्न्ीर् ँीन्ध् ऽप्रॉर्ट्टी ॉर्ऊी द्वूध्{न्ण््रण्.प्रण्ॉण्ध् ;र्अिध्ूर्अि्‌द्धध्ूर्ूिूध्ूलअ्र प्रर्॰ी गअ ँन्ध् ूर्ूिू र्९ी प्रईप्रप्रह्न ऽप्रप्रए अ्‌्रअ ;अ्‌्रअर् ी लगद्ध ध्र् ीर्न्ी अर्क्ष् ि ऽींॉन्र्ह्यी ञए र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्र ई॰ड्ढर्उीर्न्ी र्प्रीय् ऽँध्य् ॉर्ऊी.र्अिध्ूर्अि्‌ ञ प्र॰ ्र न्र्ड्डी र्र्ह्मीी९ए {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् प्रष्र्९ीॉींन् र्ईीन्ध् ूल ट्टष्न्ए ूर्ूिअ र्ऽी॰र्५ीर् ी र्न्ीझ् र्र्५ीीॉध् र्र्न्ीँी ञ ॉर्र्य्ॉीीन्र्ह्यी ध्र्र् ँीीन्ध् २न्ईींर् ीप्रर्५ीई र्प्रीर् ँीर्ईी २भन्ण्

;झ्ींर्५ीर् ी॰द्ध

ींऊ र्प्रीय् र्॰ीर्प्रीन्ध्ण्

र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्र

र्प्रीय् ॉ॰ए ऽर्र्५ीी र्न्ीत्र्न्ए "य् प्र॰}९ध्.अअर्र्र्अििि

"य् प्र॰}९ध्ए र्ईीन्ध् गअ ँन्ध्ए ूर्ूिूअअर् ीर्र्ीिंए अ्‌लग ;र्५ीद्ध

ॉण् द्वूध्{न्ण््रण्.प्रण्ॉण्ध्;र्अिध्ूर्अि्‌द्धध्ूर्ूिूण्र्९ी प्रईप्रप्रह्न ऽप्रप्रए अ्‌्रअ ;अ्‌्रअर् ी लगद्ध ध्र् ीर्न्ी अर्क्ष् ि;द्ध ऽींॉन्र्ह्यी ञए र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्र ई॰ड्ढर्उीर्न्ी र्प्रीय् ऽँध्य् ॉण् र्अिध्ूर्अि्‌ ञ प्र॰ ्र न्र्ड्डी र्र्ह्मीी९ए {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न्ए प्रष्र्९ीॉींन् र्ईीन्ध् ूल ट्टष्न्ए ूर्ूिअ र्ऽी॰र्५ीर् ीर् ीप्रर्५ीई न्र्ईी २भन्ण्

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Election Petition No. 1 of 2019

Order reserved on : 8-10-2021

Order delivered on : 24-11-2021

PETITIONER : Tarika Tarangni, W/o Nirmal Lakra, aged about 39 years, Village Post Punjipatra, Tahsil Tamnar, Distt.-Raigarh (C.G.).

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS : 1. Chakradhar Singh Sidar, Vill. Post Katakliya, Tahsil Lailunga, District-Raigarh, Pin 496113.

2. Satyanand Rathiya, Vill. Roopali, Post Kolam, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh, Pin 496107.

3. Darshana Sidar, Vill. Kamrga, Post Katakliya, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh, Pin 496113

4. Sunil Minj, Village Bhuya Pani, PO Kurra, Katakliya, Tah. Lailunga, Distt.

Raigarh, Pin 496113.

5. Hridayaram Rathiya, At/PO Kurra, Tahsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.), Pin- 496113.

6. Govind Singh Neti, Village Godhi, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh, Pin-496107 7. Shivpal Bhagat, Village Sarasmal, PO Lailunga, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh,

Pin 496113.

8. Suresh Kumar, Village Ghatgaon, Post Ghatoon, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Pin 496113.

9. State Election Commission, Through State Election Commissioner, Near D.K.S.

Bhawan, Old Mantralaya Road, Moti Bagh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001.

10. The Returning Officer (deleted)

For Election Petitioner : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey and Mr. T. L.

Bareth, Advocates.

For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. B. P. Sharma and Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocates.

For Respondent No. 2 to 9 : None present.

E. P. No. 1/2019

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

C.A.V. Order

1. The election petitioner herein has called in question the election of respondent No. 1 herein (returned candidate) from Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 15 Lailunga (ST), District Raigarh, on the ground enumerated under Section 100(1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act of 1951') that her nomination papers have been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer by its order dated 3-11-2018 vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B.

2. Election Petition by the Election Petitioner :—

2.1) The election petitioner has filed this election petition stating inter alia that on 6-10-2018, the Election Commission of India published in the Government official Gazette of Chhattisgarh, the election notification dated 6-10-2018 under Section 15 of the Act of 1951 and declared assembly election in the State of Chhattisgarh and notified the dates of Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) elections to the polls in two phases. In order to contest election from Constituency No. 15 Lailunga (ST), District Raigarh, the election petitioner herein obtained one set of nomina- tion paper from the Returning officer to file her nomination in the said election and on 31-10-2018 vide Exhibit P-1 she filed her nomination paper with affidavit and in reply to para (2) of Part 3A of the said nomination paper, she has categorically declared that she was not holding any office of profit under Central or State Government and it is the case of the election petitioner that the Returning Officer i.e. respondent No. 10 herein (deleted) called her in office and directed her to file second nomination paper with correct answer to para (2) of Part 3A of the said nomination paper whether she was holding any office under Central or State Government, and she was in- formed that in case the second nomination paper is not filed, the first nomination paper is likely to be rejeted, on which the petitioner, on 1-11-2018, filed her second set of nomination paper for the said constituency with affidavit vide Exhibit P-2 declaring at para (2) of Part 3A that she was holding the post of Rural Health Officer (Female) and due to long absence from service, the De- partment did not permit her presence and did not allow her to appear and join the service since last two years.

2.2) It is the case of the election petitioner that vide Exhibit P-3, the Returning Officer fixed the date of scrutiny on 1-11-2018/3-11-2018 and on 1-11-2018, she was served with document Exhibit P-4 asking her to produce documents relating to her Government service by 2-11-2018 up-to 3 p.m. and thereafter, in compliance thereof, she filed an affidavit Exhibit p-5 stating that she was in{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू ख् र्झ्ी्र अ 1200 Government job as Rural Health Officer (RHO) (Female) in Sub-Health Centre, Kurrog & Bahirkela; Community Health Centre, Tamnar, and Primary Health Centre, Saraipali, and she was on leave from 28-7-2016 to 31-7-2016, thereafter, on 5-11-2016, when she communicated her joining, same was not accepted by letter dated 10-11-2018 and as such, she finally concluded that no departmen- tal enquiry was instituted against her and since she is not in service from 1-8-2016 to 2-11-2018, on the pressure of Jindal Company, her services have been terminated and thus, she is not holding any office of profit. Both the nomination papers were considered by the Returning Officer and vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B, the two nomination papers were rejected by the Retuning Officer on 3-11-2018 holding that she has not filed any document to show that she has been terminated from service or she has resigned from service. On 20-11-2018, polling of that constituency took place and after 11-12-2018, counting process was completed and respondent No. 1 was declared elected from the said constituency which has been called in question by the election petitioner in this election petition.

2.3) It is the further case of the election petitioner that her nomination papers have improperly been rejected, as the first set of nomination paper filed by her to contest the election from ConstituencyNo. 15 Lailunga (ST), District Raigarh was not rejected by the Returning Officer till date, therefore, she was entitled to contest the election. It is further submitted that since the first set of nomination paper was rejected only after she filed the second set of nomination paper and since the 1st set of nomination paper had no objection/defect of any kind, therefore, the Returning Officer could not have rejected the first nomination paper by rejecting the second nomination, it is a clear case of violation of Section 36 of the Act of 1951 and contrary to law and as such, both the nomination papers have improperly been rejected in violation of Section 36(3) of the Act of 1961. As such, her nomination papers have improperly been rejected and consequently, the election of respondent No. 1 deserves to be declared void.

3. Written Statement by the Returned Candidate :—

3.1) Written statement has been filed only by respondent No. 1 denying the averments made in the election petition stating that rejection of two nomination papers of the election petitioner by the Returning Officer is fully justified and the election petitioner in her election petition has not dis- puted the fact that she was working in the Department of Health as Rural Health Officer (Female) and the election petitioner was under misconception that due to her long absence and on account of some outside forces, her services have been terminated which is false to the knowledge of the petitioner herself. As such, the petitioner was in Government service on the date of filing nomina- tion paper and she could not file documents showing that she has resigned from service or she has been terminated from service in accordance with the relevant provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, (the Rules of 1966') and therefore she is not qualified for being elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly and her nomination has rightly been rejected.

3.2) Specific statement has been made by respondent No. 1 in paragraph 40 of the written statement stating inter alia that since the election petitioner was in Government service, the Returning Of- ficer vide Exhibit P-4 has rightly granted one day time till 2-11-2018 up to 3 p.m. to the election petitioner to file documents qua the Government service, but the petitioner could not substantiate that she has already resigned from service. It has been further averred that although the petitioner has filed affidavit vide Exhibit P-5 that her services have been terminated, but documents demon- strating her termination were not filed, therefore, vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B, the Returning Of- ficer was justified in rejecting her nomination papers, as the petitioner's services can be terminated except only in accordance with the Rules of 1966. Therefore, the nomination papers of the peti- tioner have rightly been rejected by the Returning Officer. It has also been pleaded that qualifica- tions for membership of a Legislative Assembly have been stated in Section 5 of the Act of 1951 which has to be read along with Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which provides that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assem- bly or Legislative Council of a State, if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder. Since the petitioner was holding the office of profit as she was, on the date of scrutiny of nomination paper, in Government service being Rural Health Officer (Female) which is an office of profit and which is a disqualification ofर्झ्ी्र अ , {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू 1201 membership being a Government servant, drawing or entitled to draw salary from the Government on account of holding post, therefore, the petitioner was disqualified under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and as such, the Returning Officer was fully justified in rejecting the nomina- tion papers after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and as such, the election petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Issues and Findings on the Issues :— On the basis of pleadings made by parties, following issues were framed and corresponding asnwers/findings are noted against each one of them :—

S. No. (1)

Issues (2)

Findings (3)

1. Whether the election of respondent No. 1 from "NO"

Lailunga Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 15 (Scheduled Tribe), Distt. Raigarh, is liable to be declared void under Section 100(1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for improper rejection of election petitioner's nomination paper by order dated 3-11-2018 by the Returning Officer on the ground of her being in service of the State Government ?

2. Whether the election petition as framed and This issue has already been adjudicated as filed is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance preliminary issue by order dated 26-7-2021 of the mandatory provisions of the Representa- and review petition against that order has tion of the People Act, 1951 including the also been dismissed by order dated 4-10- proviso to Section 83 of the said Act and Rule 2021. 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 ?

3. Relief and cost(s) which the election petitioner Election petitioner is not entitled for any relief as per paragraph 42 of this judgment.

is entitled for ?

5. In order to prove her case that her nomination papers were improperly rejected by the Returning Officer, though the election petitioner has entered into the witness box as PW-1, but she has not filed her affidavit under order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC and only in her examination-in-chief before the Court, she has exhibited documents Exhibits P-1 to P-5, P-6A & P-6B. When the evidence of the election petitioner commenced on 10-9-2021, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has filed an application under Order 18 rule 4 of the CPC that the election petitioner has not filed her affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, therefore, she is not entitled to record her evidence and prayed for a direction to the election petitioner to comply with the mandatory statutory provisions contained in Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC while proceeding with examina- tion/evidence of herself and/or her witnesses on which the order was reserved and to be considered at the time of final hearing/order.

6. Since the election petitioner did not choose to file affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC before commencement of trial of election petition and only choose to enter the witness box to prove the documents vide Exhibits P-1 to P-5, P-6A & P-6B, it is the choice of the election petitioner to file or not to file affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, but she cannot be compelled to do so as she had already entered the witness box on 10-9-2021 and she has been extensively cross-examined by and on behalf of respondent No. 1. As such, this application I.A. No. 12/2021 is accordingly disposed of.

7. Similarly, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 raised a strong objection that the documents Exhibits P-1 to P-6, P-6A & P-6B are inadmissible in evidence and the election petitioner cannot prove those documents. Documents Exhibits P-1 to P-6, P-6A & P-6B are public documents and certified copies of which have been produced before the court at the instance of the election petitioner and which have been marked as exhibits. It is well settled law that more marking of a document as an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of the document (See Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others V. Yelamarti Satyam and others¹). Therefore, the objec- tion raised on behalf of respondent No. 1 in this regard is hereby rejected.

8. In order to prove her case, the election petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and has produced documents Exhibits P-1 to P-5, P-6A & P-6B on 10-09-2021. Similarly. in opposition. though respondent No. 1 did not enter into the witness box, his election agent namely, Om Sagar Patel (DW-1) has entered into the witness box and Returning Officer Ashok Kumar Marbal has been examined as DW-2. Respondent No. 1 has brought documents Exhibits D-1 to D-8 on record. Ashok Kumar Marbal (DW-2) - Returning Officer has proved his signature on Exhibits P-4, P-6A & P-6B and also stated that he has rejected the nomination papers vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B by order dated 3-11-2018.

9. Submissions on behalf of the parties :—

9.1) Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the election petitioner, would submit as under :— 1. The Returning Officer — respondent No. 10 herein (deleted) has acted in improper manner firstly, by examining the nomination paper at the time of submission (before the date of scrutiny) and directed for submission of documents regarding Government service vide Exhibit P-4 and secondly, by rejecting both the nomination papers on the same date on the ground of the election petitioner being in Government service and has not filed documents showing resignation or otherwise, particularly when the election patitioner in her first nomination, has not said that she is a holder of the office of profit, as such, her nomination papers were improperly rejected.

2. The election petitioner was not in Government service as Rural Health Officer (Female) at the relevant point of time as her services were terminated on the pressure applied by Jindal company and she is not in service from 1-8-2016 to 2-11-2018 and she was not holding the office of profit as she has clearly stated in the affidavit filed before the Return- ing Officer vide Exhibit P-5 on 2-11-2018. The order of the Returning Officer vide Exhib- its P-6A & P-6B was totally a wrong and perverse order and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is also violative of Sections 30, 35 & 36 of the Act of 1951. The election petitioner was never holding any office of profit and she has been terminated and is covered by Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and relied upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts :—

1. Mohinder Singh Gill and another V. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others² (Supreme Court).

2. Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage Board, etc. V. R. Rajappa and others³ (Supreme Court).

3. The Divisional Forest Manager v. Shri Vinayak Kume⁴ (Bombay High Court).

4. State of Rajasthan and other v. Harish Chandra Sharma and others⁵ (Rajasthan High Court).

5. Mukundbhi Mangaldas Shrimali v. State of Gujarat⁶ (Gujarat High Court).

9.2) Mr. B. P. Sharma and Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, would submit that the Returning Officer has acted as per the directions contained in the Handbook for Returning Officer 2018 issued by the State Election Commission, which provides that he shall take decision by conducting preliminary examination of nomination papers immediately upon receiving the same and asking for submission of relevant documents relating to Government sevice. Thus, as per the directions/instructions, the Returning Officer has to scrutinize all the nomination papers together in view of the provisions contained in clause 6.5 of the aforesaid Handbook and as such, both the nomination papers were rightly rejected by the Returning Officer on 3-11-2018 vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B, Since the election petitioner was in Government service, Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, bars a Government servant to take part in anर्झ्ी्र अ , {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू 1203 election to the legislature or the local authority. Similarly, unless an express order after departmen- tal enquiry is passed, merely on account of absence from duty after expiry of leave, it cannot be presumed that her services have been terminated in view of Rule 24 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977. It was also submitted that since the election petitioner was admit- tedly in Government service and she was holding the office of profit in terms of Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, she was disqualified from contesting election and being chosen as a Member of Legislative Assembly and as such, her nomination papers were rightly rejected by the Returning Officer and thus, the election petition deserves to be dismissed.

10. Except respondent No. 1 other respondents have not chosen to appear and contest the election petition and no written statement was filed on their behalf, as such, they have been proceeded ex parte in this election petition.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

12. Reasons for finding on issues :—

Issue No. 1 :— For the sake of convenience, issue No. 1 is divided in two parts in the following manner :— 1. Whether, on the date of filing nomination papers vide Exhibits P-1 & P-2, the election petitioner was in Government service in the Department of Health, as Rural Health Officer (Female) under the State of Chhattisgarh and as such, the Returning Officer - respondent No. 10 herein (deleted) was justified in rejecting her nomination papers on the ground of she being in Government service by taking both the nomination papers simultaneously ?

and/or

2. Whether, the election petitioner was disqualified for being chosen as a Member of Legislative Assembly on account of her holding the post of RHO (F) under the Government of Chhattisgarh being an office of profit and therefore in terms of Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India disqualified from being chosen as a Member of Legislative Assembly ?

13. The election petitioner being an elector for Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 15 Lailunga (ST), District Raigarh, in order to contest election from the said constituency submitted her first nomination paper to the Returning Officer vide Exhibit P-1 on 31-10-2018 in which in Part 3A, para (2), she has clearly stated that she is not holding any office of profit either under the state Government or under the Union of India and thereafter, she submitted second nomination paper vide Exhibit P-2 on 1-11-2018 at 2.45 p.m. clearly stating in Part 3A, para (2), that she was holding the office of profit as Rueal Health Officer (Female) in the Department of Health, but on account of her long absence, her joining has not been accepted and for last two years, she has not been allowed to work in the district office. The Returning Officer vide Exhibit P- 3 after Preliminary examination on 1-11-2018 at 3.12 p.m. issued document Exhibit P-4 directing the election petitioner to produce documents qua her Government service by 2-11-2018 till 3p.m. in compli- ance of Exhibit P-4, the election petitioner filed affidavit Exhibit P-5 in which she has stated that from 8-8- 2002 to 31-7-2016, she was in regular Government service as RHO (F) in Sub-Health Centre, Kurrog & Bahirkela; Community Health Centre, Tamnar, and Primary Health Centre, Saraipali, and she was on leave from 28-7-2016 to 31-7-2016, but thereafter, she has not been allowed to join, and finally, in paragraph 10, she has concluded that from 1-8-2016 to 2-11-2018, for two years, she is not in Government service and under the pressure of Jindal company, her services have been terminated and she is not holding office either under the Central or State Government. The election petitioner has filed documents in nine pages along with the affidavit which have been produced and exhibited by respordent No. 1 and Proved by the election petitioner vide Exhibits D-1 to D-8. On receipt of documents Exhibit P-5 and Exhibits D-1 to D-8, the Returning Officer vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B, rejected both the nomiation papers, as the election petitioner herself has admitted being in Government service but she has not produced any document of resignation demonstrating that her resignation has been accepted by the competent authority within the time limit fixed and accordingly, proceeded to reject the nominations vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B and thereafter, the elec- tion as scheduled was held in which respondent No. 1 has been declared elected which is sought to be challenged by the petitioner on the sole ground that her nomination papers have been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.

14. The first and foremost objection that has been taken on behalf of the election petitioner is that both the nomination papers Exhibits P-1 & P-2 were considered and rejected simultaneously, they ought to have been considered separately it is the case of the petitioner that the Returning Officer made preliminary examination of her first nomination paper and directed her to file second nomination paper, and under the threat of rejection of her first nomination paper, she has filed the second nomination paper.

15. Mr. Ashok Kumar Marbal, who at the relevant point of time functioned as Returning Officer, has been examined as DW-2. In his evidence before the Court, he has clearly stated that following the procedure prescribed in the Handbook for Returning Officer 2018 issued by the State Election Commission and the procedure prescribed for scrutiny of nomination papers and upon preliminary examination as prescribed in clause 5.11.1 and in view of the fact that the petitioner herself having stated in Exhibit P-2 that she is holding the office of profit being RHO (F) in the Department of Health and her joining has not been accepted on account of long absence, Exhibit P-4 was issued to her in the format prescribed in the said Handbook to which the petitioner has submitted reply in shape of affidavit Exhibit P-5 and as per the procedure contained in clause 6.5 of the aforesaid Handbook, both the nomination papers have scrutinized simultaneously.

16. In order to decide the said plea, it would be appropriate to notice clause 6.5.1. of the Handbook for Return- ing Officer 2018 contained in clause 6.5. which provides for Scrutinization of all nomination papers. Clause 6.5.1. states as under :—

"6.5. All Nomination Papers to be Scrutinized

6.5.1. Returning Officer should then take up nomination papers one after another and scrutinize them, If more than one nomination paper has been presented by or on behalf of one candidate, he/she should take them up together and scrutinize them one after another. It whould not be correct or legal to pass over other nomination papers of a candidate without scrutiny, merely because one ore more nomination papers of that candidate have been already found valid by the Returning Officer."

17. A careful persual of the aforesaid provision would show that if more than one nomination paper has been presented by or on behalf of one candidate, all nomination papers have to be taken together and have to be scrutininzed one after another, meaning thereby, all the nomination papers have to be taken together and they are not supposed to be decided separately. in the instant case, since the election petitioner has filed two nomination papers vide Exhibits P-1 & P-2 for contesting the election in Lailunga Assembly Constituency No. 15 (ST), both the nomination papers were considered together by the Returning Officer and in view of reply made by the petitioner in Part 3A, para (2) of Exnibit P-2 that she was holding the office of profit but she has not been allowed to join, Exhibit P-4 was issued to the petitioner and thereafter, considering her affidavit Exhibit P-5, both the nomination papers were rejected vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B. As such, the Returning Officer has rightly followed the procedure and rightly took-up the nomination papers Exhibits P- 1 & P-2 together and rightly considered the same together as per the procedure prescribed by considering the two nomination papers filed by one candidate and thus, no objection could have been taken in that respect that both the nomination papers could have been decided separately. The procedure followd by the Returning Officer in considering both the nomination papers simultaneously is in accordance with clause 6.5, of the Handbook for Returning Officer 2018 and otherwise also, it is established practice to consider the two nomination papers of one candidte together, which cannot be said to be erroneous of illegal in law. I do not find any merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the nomination papers could not have been considered simultaneously at the time of scrutiny and therefore the nomination paper Exhibit P-1 could have been rejected as there was no objection in that regard.

18. It is the case of the election petitioner that though she was holding the post of Rural Health Officer (Female) in the Department of Health as a regular Government servant from 8-8-2002 to 31-7-2016 and she remained on leave from 28-7-2016 to 31-7-2016, but thereafter, when she submitted letter dated 5-11-2016 for join- ing, it was not accepted and number of letters vide Exhibits D-1 to D-3 were submitted by her for joining and finally, she was given a letter by the Block Medical Officer, Tamnar to obtain permission from the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Distt. Raigarh to join in the Government service, vide Exhibit D-4, thereafter, she also submitted letters to the CMHO, Distt. Raigarh, videe Exhibit D-5 to D-8, but she was not allowed to join in service and thus, she is not in Government service from 1-8-2016 to 2-11-2018 and as such, her services have been terminated on the pressure of Jindal company and she is not holding any office of profitर्झ्ी्र अ , {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू 1205 under the State or the Central Government. Document Exhibit P-2 is the document of the election petitioner herself in which she has stated in Part 3A, para (2), as under :—

र्झ्ी्र ग

;ऽध्ध्य् र्उीर्न्ी झ्र्न्ीर् ँीद्ध

;अद्ध --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

;ूद्ध र्घी ऽध्ध्य् र्झ्ीन्ई ॉर्न्ीन्र् ी र्न्ीद्द ॉर्न्ीन् ऽर्क्तीध्र् ी"य्न् र्९ीझ्र् ी ॰ र्र्क्तीीर्ह्यी न् न्२र्न्ी २भन् घ् र् ैीण् प्रर्झ्ी्र (R.H.O.F.) ;२र्न्ीञध्२न्ध्ञद्धण् प्र॰ २र्न्ीञए र्र्क्तीीप्रन्ई ॰ र्न्नीभश्न् ९ञष् ॉ ॉ ऽींप्रैई न्२न् र् ीन्र्ह्यी प्रर्झ्ी्र न्ध् न्प्रैप्रईर् ीह्म २न्ध्ञ ध् ू र्र्ऽी ॉ ींर्ी प्रँर्९ीर्र् ीीय्९ ॉर् ीय् ञ न्प्रैई २र्न्ी ध् ऽींप्रई २न्ध्ञ ॰ध् ्र"य्न् २भन्ण्

19. It is appropriate to mention here that Exhibit P-2 is the document of the election petitioner herself and in her cross-examination, paragraph 5, she has clearly stated the aforesaid fact to be correct. Similarly in the affidavit submitted by her before the Returning Officer (Exhibit P-5), she has specifically stated that she was in Government service from 8-8-2002 to 31-7-2016 as RHO (F) in Sub-Health Centre, Kurrog & Bahirkela, Community Health Centre, Tamnar; and Primary Health Centre, Saraipali. As such, the fact of the election petitioner being a Government servant on the date of nomination is not in dispute. What she has stated in Exhibit P-2, in Part 3A, para (2) as well as in Exhibit P-5 is that she was not allowed to join despite several letters Exhibits D-1 to D-3 & D-5 to D-8 and no departmental enquiry was held against her and she is not in Government service from 1-8-2016 to 2-11-2018 for last two years and on the pressure of Jindal company, her services have been terminated and she is not holding the office of profit and same amounts to oral termination of service.

20. As such, it is duly established from the aforesaid facts that the election petitioner was appointed as regular Government servant in the Department of Health as RHO (F) in August, 2008, she was a regular Govern- ment servant and she continued on the post up to 31-7-2016. On 28-7-2016, she proceeded on leave up to 31-7-2016, but thereafter, on 5-11-2016, it is her case that she was not allowed to join in the Government service which is apparent from Exhibit D-1 to D-3 and vide Exhibit D-4, the Block Medical Officer, Tamnar asked her to seek permission from the CMHO, Distt. Raigarh which she submitted asking for her joining vide Exhibit D-5 to D-8, but she was not permitted to join. As such it is a case of absence from service after expiry of leave.

21. Rule 24 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 (for short, 'the Rules of 1977') provides the consequence of absence from duty after expiry of leave. It states as under :—

"24. Absence after expiry of leave.—

(1) Unless the authority competent to grant leave extends the leave, Government servant who remains absent after the end of leave is entitled to no leave salary for the period of such absence and that period shall be debited against his leave account as though it were half pay leave to the extent such leave is due, the period in excess of such leave due being treated as extraordinary leave.

(2) Willful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action."

22. A careful perusal of the aforesaid rule would show that in case of long absence or remaining absent after the end of leave without grant by the competent authority, the Government servant is entitled to no leave salary for the period of such absence and that period shall be debited against his leave accout. Similarly, by virtue of sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 of the Rules of 1977, willful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action. Pursuant to the departmental proceeding. a Government servant can be inflicted the penalties set-out in Rule 10 of the Rules of 1966 which can be minor penalties as well as major penalties and which rests exclusively within the jurisdiction and domain of the disciplinary authority. However, in view of Rule 24(2) of the Rules of 1977, long absence after expiry of leave will not amount to authomatic termination of service as for termination of service there has to be a departmental{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू ख् र्झ्ी्र अ 1206 enquiry in case of regular Government servant in accordance with the Rules of 1966 and penalty of termi- nation can be inflicted as major penalty after recording a finding of grave misconduct, except in cases covered by 2nd proviso to sub-clause(2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove/reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry.

23. Admittedly, in the present case, on the own showing of the election petitioner vide Exhibit P-5 in paragraph 9, it has clearly been stated that no departmental enquiry was instituted against her and as such, there is no order of termination passed against her. The petitioner has only stated in paragraph 10 of Exhibit P-5 that she is not in Government service with effect from 1-8-2016 to the date of scrutiny i.e. 2-11-2018 and her services have been terminated that too on the pressure of Jindal company and she is not holding any office of profit which the Returning Officer didi not accept holding that since the petitioner is in regular govern- ment servant and she has not produced the order of termination or letter of resignation within the time limit given by him, therefore, in that view of the matter, her nomination papers are rejected. and thus, the Return- ing officer didi not accept the fact of oral termination from service claimed by the election petitioner.

24. At this stage, it would be extremely relevant to notice Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (for short, the Rules of 1965') by which the Government servants are barred from participating in the election of any legislature or local authority. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965 states as under :—

"5. Taking part in politics and elections.— (1) to (3) XXX XXX

(4) No Government servant shall canvas or otherwise interfere with, or use his influence in connection with or take part in, an election to any legislature or local authority :

Provided that —

(i) a Government servant qualified to vote at such election may exercise his right to vote, but where he does so, he shall give no indication of the manner in which he proposes to vote or has voted ;

(ii) a Government servant shall not be deemed to have contravened the provisions of this sub-rule by reason only that he assists in the conduct of an election in the due performance or a duty imposed on him by or under any law for the time being in force.

Explanation.— The display by a Government servant on his person, vehicle or residence of any electoral symbol shall amount to using his infliuence in connection with an election within the meaning of this sub-rule." 25. A focused glance of the aforesaid provision would show that the legislature has designedly thought it expedient to restrain/injunct the government servant eiher to canvas or otherwise interfere with, or use his influence in connection with or take part in, an election to any legislature or local authority. The legislative object of enacting such rule is that the status enjoyed by the candidates shall not be allowed to be prejudicial via-a-vis candidates who do not enjoy such a status. As such. the election petitioner being a regular Govern- ment servant on the date of filling nomination was by virtue of Rule 5(4) of the Rules of 1965 specifically prohibited from taking part in the election to the legislature, as the said provision is imperative in nature being the legislative injunction restraining the Government servant from taking part in election to any legislature or local authority, in any manner whatsoever.

26. In the matter of Chet Ram V. Jit Singh⁷, the Supreme Court considered rule 22(4) of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 which contained prohibition against taking part in election to any legislative or local authority and held that since there is a specific prohibition in statutory rules against taking part in elections of legislative assembly or local authority, the candidate isर्झ्ी्र अ , {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू 1207 disqualified from constesting in the election. It has been observed in paragraph 9 of the report as under :—

"9. Indisputably, the terms and conditions of a Gramin Dak Sewak are governed by the provisions of the Rules ;

sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 whereof reads as under :

"22. (4) No Sevak shall canvass or otherwise interfere with or use his influence in con-

nection with, or take part in an election to any legislative or local authority." The said Rules were framed in terms of proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The terms and conditions of employment of a Gramin Dak Sewak are governed by statutory rules. The Rules framed in terms of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India indisputably govern only government employees. It was, therefore, for appellant to show that he was not governed by the Rules."

27. Since the election petitioner was specifically prohibited by sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965 from taking part in election and the said rule is statutory in nature, the petitioner contested the election in direct conflict with specific prohibition contained in the above-stated rule applicable to her.

28. In view of the above-stated finding, the plea of termination advanced by learned consel for the petitioner has no force and accordingly it is rejected. Similarly, the judgments cited by Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel, are clearly inapplicable and distinguisheble to the facts of the present case.

29. Now, the question for consideration is, whether the election petitioner was disqualified for being chosen as Member of Legislative Assembly on account of her holding the office of profit under the Government of Chhattisgarh ?

30. In order to adjudicate the plea, it would be appropriate to notice the provision contained in Article 191 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India which states as under :—

"191. Disqualifications for membership.— (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State —

(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder,"

31. The principal contained in Article 191 of the Constitution of India is based on sound public policy of ensuing impartiality and neutrality in public service and avoidance of conflict between duty and interest of an elected member enabling him to carry-on his duties, freely and fearlessly without being subjected to any governmental pressure thereby maintaining purity of legislature. The object of said provision Article 191 (1)(a) of the Constitution is to disqualify a person from membership of legislature, if he/she is obliged to the Government for an office which carries benefit or profit and thus, compromising his/her independence.

32. An 'office of profit' is an office which is capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain. In order to be an office of profit, the office must carry various pecuniary benefits or must be capable of yielding pecuniary benefits such as providing for official accommodation or even a chauffeur driven car. Holding an office the Central or state Government to which some pay, salary emolument, remuneration or non-compensatory allowance are attached is "holding an office of profit". The question whether a persons holds an office of profit is required to b interpreted in a realistic manner.

33. For deciding the question as to whether one is holding an office of profit or not, what is relevant is, whether the office is capable or "yielding" a profit or "pecuniary gain" and not whether the person actually obtained monetary gain. If the 'pecuniary' gain is receivable in connection with the office, then it becomes an office of profit, irrespective of the fact whether such pecuniary gain is actually received or not. If the office carries{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू ख् र्झ्ी्र अ 1208 with it, or entitles the holder to any pecuniary gain other than reimbursement of out of pocket/actual expenses, then the office will be an office of profit. (See Jaya Bachchan V. Union of India⁸.)

34. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar V. Agadi Sanganna Andanappa⁹ while taking into consideration its earlier decision in the matter of Ravanna Subanna v. G. S. Kaggeerappa¹⁰ laid down the tests for finding out whether an office in question is an office under a Government and whether it is an office of profit. It has been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar (supra) as under :—

"14. Therefore before the provisions of that Article can be attracted, it must be established that he was holding an office under the Union or the State Government and that that office was an office of profit and thereafter we must see whether the disqualification relating to that office has been removed by any Parliamentary legislation. In other words, the office in question must have been held under a Government and to that some pay, salary, emoluments or allowance is attached. The word 'profit' connotes the idea of pecuniary gain. If there is really a gain, its quantum or amount would not be material; but the amount of money receivable by a person in connection with the office he holds may be material in deciding whether the office really carries any profit-see Revenna Subanna v. G. S. Kaggerappa (AIR 1954 SC 653). This Court in several decisions has laid down the tests for finding out whether an office in question is an office under a government and whether it is an office of profit. Those tests are : (1) Whetther the Government makes the appointment; (2) Whether the Government has the right to remove or dismiss the holder; (3) Whether the Govern- ment pays the remuneration; (4) what are the functions of the holder? Does he perform them for the Government and (5) Does the Government exercise any control overr the performance of those functions? see abdul Shakur v. Rikhab Chand¹¹; Ramappa v. Sangappa¹²; and Govinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad¹³. ......"

35. Similarly, in the matter of Biharilal Dobray v. Roshan Lal Dobray¹⁴, the Supreme Court while considering the earlier decisions and highlighting the object of enacting Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, held in paragraph 5 as under :—

"5. The object of enacting Article 191 (1) (a) is plain. A person who is elected to a Legislature should be free to carry on his duties fearlessly without being subjected to any kind of governmental pressure. If such a person is holding an office which brings him remuneration and the Government has a voice in his continuance in that office, there is every likelihood of such person succumbing to the wishes of Government. Article 191 (1)(a) is intended to eliminate the possibility of a conflict between duty and interest and to maintain the purity of the Legislatures. The term "office of profit under the Government" used in the above clause though indeterminate is an expression of wider import than a post held under the Government which is dealt with in Part XIV of the Constitution. For holding an office of profit under the Government a person need not be in the service of the Government and there need not be any relationship of master and servant between them. An office of profit involves two elements, namely, that there should be an office and that it should carry some remuneration. In order to determine whether a person holds an office of profit under the Govern- ment several tests are ordinarily applied such as whether the Government makes the appointment, whether the Government has the right to remove or dismiss the holder of the office, whether the Government pays the remuneration, whether the functions performed by the holder are carried on by him for the Government and whether the Government has control over the duties and functions of the holder. Whether an office in order to be characterised as an office of profit under the Govern- ment should satisfy all these tests or whether any one or more of them may be decisive of its true nature has been the sbject matter of several cases decided by this Court but no decision apppears to lay down conclusively the characteristics of an office of profit under the Government although the Court has no doubt determined in each case whether the particular office involved in it was such an office or not having regard to its features."

36. Similarly, in the matter of Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Raju v. Vyrichertla Pradeep Kumar Dev and an- other¹⁵, again the Supreme Court set-out some of the tests/principles for determining whether a person holds an office of profit under the Government and summarized the legal principles in paragraphs 11 and 18 as under :—

"11. On a careful examination of the ratio laid down in the above-mentioned cases some of the tests or principles that emerge for determining whether a person holds an office of profit under the Govern- ment, may be summarised thus:

"(1) The power of the Government to appoints a person in office or to revoke his appointment at its discretion. The mere control of the Government over the authority having the power to appoints, dismiss, or control the working of the officer employed by such authority does not disqualify that officer from being a candidate for election as a member of the Legislature.

(2) The payment from out of the Government revenues are important factors in determining whether a person is holding an office of profit or not of the Government. Though payment form a source other than the Government revenue is not always a decisive factor.

(3) The incorporation of a body corporate and entrusting the functions to it by the Govern- ment may suggest that the statute intended it to be a statutory corporation independent of the Government. But it is not conclusive on the question whether it is really so indepen- dent. Sometimes, the form may be that of a body corporate independent of the Govern- ment, but in substance, it may just be the alter ego of the Government itself.

(4) The true test of determination of the said question depends upon the degree of control the Government has over it, the extent of control exercised by very other bodies or commit- tees, and its composition, the degree of its dependence on the Government for its financial needs and the functional aspect, namely, whether the body is discharging any important Governmental function or just some function which is merely optional from the points of view of the Government."

18. Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a) are incorporated in order to eliminate or reduce the risk of conflict between the duty and interest amongst the members of the Legislature and to ensure that the Legislature does not contain persons who have received benefits from the Executive and who consequently being under an obligation might be amenable to its influence. Therefore this object must be borne in mind in interpreting these Articles. It is in this context the words "under the Government" so far as the present case is concerned, become more relevant and should be exam- ined from that perspective keeping in view the necessary power to appoint or remove." 37. In the matter of Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay and others¹⁶, the Supreme Court took under review the earlier decisions on the point and observed in paragraphs 24, 25, 26 and 27 as under :—

"24. In Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Raju v. Vyricherla Pradeep Kumar Dev, (1992) 4 SCC 404, the appellant had been appointed as a single teacher in a primary school by the Project officer of the Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA). The High Court held that the appeliant was hold- ing an "office of profit" and had, thus, incurred a disqualification envisaged by Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution. Setting aside the order of the High Court, and allowing the appeal it was held by this Court: SCC p. 428-29, para 29

"29. What emerges from the above discussion is that the Government has some control over the ITDA which is set up as a project, since it provides funds and sanctions the posts; the District Collector is appointed as Project Officer and some officers are ex officio members of the ITDA which carries out the object of providing compulsory education in tribal areas. But the ITDA is a registered sociaty having its own constitution. Though the Project Officer is the District Collector, he acts as a different entity. The power to appoint or to remove teachers is not with the Government but with the Project Officer. The Government 15 (1992) 4 SCC 404 16 (2001) 7 SCC 425{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू ख् र्झ्ी्र अ 1210 may have control over the appointing authority but has no direct control over the teachers. The small post that appellant holds in ITDA is only that of a teacher who is directly under the control of the Project Officer. In such a situation the question of any conflict between his duties and interests as an elected member does not arise since it cannot be said that he, as a teacher, can be subjected to any kind of pressure by the Government which has neither the power to appoint him nor to remove him from service. Taking a practical view of the substance of these factors into consideration, we are of the view that the appellant cannot be held to be holding an office of profit under the Government".

(emphasis supplied) 25. From a resume of precedents noticed above we find that in order to attract disqualification contained in Article 102(1)(a), a person must not only be holding "an officer" but that office must be "an office of profit" and should be "under the Government" and should be an office other than an office declared by the completent legislature by law not to dis- qualify its holder. The first question which comes to the fore, therefore is as to when can a person be said to be "holding an office of profit" under the Government.

26. The expression "office of profit" has not been defined either in the Constitution or in the Representation of the People Act. In common parlance, the expression "profit" connotes an idea of some pecuniary gain. If there is really some gain, its label — "honorarium" — "remuneration" — "Salary" is not material — it is the substance and not the form which matters and even the quantum or amount of "pecuniary gain" is not relevant — what needs to be found out is whether the amount of money receivable by the person concerned in connection with the office he holds, gives to him some "Pecuniary gain", other than as "compensation" to defray his out-of-pocket expenses, which may have the possibility to bring that person under the influence of the executive, which is conferring that benefit on him.

27. With a view to determine whether the office concerned is an "office of profit", the court must, however, take a realistic view. Taking a broad or general view, ignoring essential details is not desirable nor is it permissible to take a narrow view by which technicality may overtake reality. It is a rule of interpretation of statutes that the statutory provisions are so construed as to avoid absurdity and to further rather than defeat or frustrate the object of the enactment. Courts, therefore, while construing a statute avoid strict con- struction by construing the entire Act. (See with advantage Ashok Kumar Bhattacharyya v. Ajoy Biswas¹⁷, Tinsukhia Electric supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam¹⁸, and CIT v. J.H. Gotla¹⁹.)"

38. In Jaya Bachchan (supra), the Supreme Court has considered clause (1) (a) of Article 102 of the Constitution of India, which is pari materia to Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution, and following the earlier decisions, held as under :—

"6. Clause (1) (a) of Article 102 provides that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament if he holds any office of profit under the Gov- ernment of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder. The term "holds an office of profit" though not defined, has been the subject-matter of interpretation, in several decisions of this Court. An office of profit is an office which is capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain. Holding an office under the Central or State Government, to which some pay, salary, emolument, remuneration or non-compensatory allowance is attached, is "holding an office of profit". The question whether a person holds an office of profit is required to be interpreted in a realistic manner. Nature of the payment must be considered as a matter of substance rather than of form, Nomenclature is not important. In fact, mere use of the word "honorarium" cannot take th payment out of the purview of profit, if there is pecuniary gain for the recipient. Payment of honorarum, in addition to daily allowances in the nature of compensatory allowances, rent free accommodation and chauffeur driven car at State 17 (1985) 1 SCC 151 18 (1989) 3 SCC 709 19 (1985) 4 SCC 343र्झ्ी्र अ , {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू 1211 expense, are clearly in the nature of remuneration and a source of pecuniary gain and hence consti- tute profit. For deciding the question as to whether one is holding an office of profit or not, what is relevant is whether the office is capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain and not whether the person actually obtained a monetary gain. If the "pecuniary gain" is "receivable" in connection with the office then it becomes an office of profit, irrespective of whether such pecuniary gain is actually received or not. If the office carries with it, or entitles the holder to, any pecuniary gain other than reimbursement of out of pocket/actual expenses, then the office will be an office of profit for the purpose of Article 102(1)(a). This position of law stands settled for over half a century commencing from the decisions of Ravanna Subanna v. G.S. Kaggeerappa, AIR (1954) SC 653; Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar v. Agadi Sanganna Andanappa, (1971) 3 SCC 870; Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Raju v. Vyricherla Pradeep Kumar Dev. (1992) 4 SCC 404 and Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay, (2001) 7 SCC 425."

39. In the matter of State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna and others v. Janakdhari Prasad and others²⁰, the Supreme Court has held that the nature of disqualification has to be strictly construed keeping in mind that right to contest an election is not a fundamental right out the said right may be curtailed under valid statutory provision.

40. Finally, in the matter of Narayan Dinbaji Jambhule v. Dr. Deorao Madguji Holi and others²¹, the Bombay High Court in facts similar to the case in hand held that respondent No. 5 therein who was employed as Medical Officer, in Class-II, Group "A" Services and was in employment of State Government on the day on which he submitted nomination for Assembly Elections, held office of profit as contemplated by Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India and thus, he stands disqualified to be chosen as member of Legisla- tive Assembly as per Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution and Section 100(1)(a) of the Act of 1951 and quashed the election of the returned candidate (respondent No. 5) holding that he was not qualified to be chosen as a member of Legislative Assembly.

41. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid legal proposition flowing from the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court in Narayan Dinbaji Jambhule (su- pra), it is quite vivid that the election petitioner being Rural Health Officer (Female) and thereby a regular Government servant on the roll of the State Government on the date on which she submitted nomination paper for assembly election, and though on the date of submission of nomination paper, she was not actually working on account of her joining not being accepted by the competent authority, but she was admittedly, a Government servant who was entitled to draw, salary and allowances, as such, was holding the office of profit and therefore disqualified from being chosen as a member of Legislative Assembly and therefore the Returning Officer is justified in rejecting her nomination papers vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B. The election petitioner has failed to demonstrate that her nomination papers were improperly rejected by the Returning Officer within the meaning of Section 100(1)(c) of the Act of 1951.

Relief and cost :—

42. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the election petition deserves to be and is accord- ingly dismissed. in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own cost(s).

43. A copy of this order be sent to the State Election Commission forthwith as required by Section 103 of the Act of 1951.

Sd/-

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL,

Election Judge.

र्ऽी॰र्५ी ॉए

२न्ैर्ईीण्ध्.

;श्न्ह्म]र् ीण् ष्ींर्न्ीप्रर्९ीद्ध प्रन्क्न् र्र्क्तीी ॉप्रए र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्रण् 20 (2018) 8 SCC 1 21 2017 (2) Mh. L. J. 807{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू ख् र्झ्ी्र अ 1212 ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001

New Delhi, dated 31st January, 2022—11 Magha, 1943 (Saka)

No. 82/CGH-LA/(01/2019)/2022.—In pursuance of Section 106 (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Election Commission hereby publish Order dated the 24th November, 2021 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in Election Petition No. 01 of 2019.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Election Petition No. 1 of 2019

Order reserved on : 8-10-2021

Order delivered on : 24-11-2021

PETITIONER : Tarika Tarangni, W/o Nirmal Lakra, aged about 39 years, Village Post Punjipatra, Tahsil Tamnar, Distt.-Raigarh (C.G.).

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS : 1. Chakradhar Singh Sidar, Vill. Post Katakliya, Tahsil Lailunga, District-Raigarh, Pin 496113.

2. Satyanand Rathiya, Vill. Roopali, Post Kolam, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh, Pin 496107.

3. Darshana Sidar, Vill. Kamrga, Post Katakliya, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh, Pin 496113

4. Sunil Minj, Village Bhuya Pani, PO Kurra, Katakliya, Tah. Lailunga, Distt.

Raigarh, Pin 496113.

5. Hridayaram Rathiya, At/PO Kurra, Tahsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.), Pin- 496113.

6. Govind Singh Neti, Village Godhi, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh, Pin-496107 7. Shivpal Bhagat, Village Sarasmal, PO Lailunga, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh, Pin 496113.

8. Suresh Kumar, Village Ghatgaon, Post Ghatoon, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Pin 496113.

9. State Election Commission, Through State Election Commissioner, Near D.K.S. Bhawan, Old Mantralaya Road, Moti Bagh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001.

10. The Returning Officer (deleted)

For Election Petitioner : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey and Mr. T. L.

Bareth, Advocates.

For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. B. P. Sharma and Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocates.

For Respondent No. 2 to 9 : None present.

E. P. No. 1/2019

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

C.A.V. Order

1. The election petitioner herein has called in question the election of respondent No. 1 herein (returned candidate) from Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 15 Lailunga (ST), District Raigarh, on the ground enumerated under Section 100(1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act of 1951') that her nomination papers have been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer by its order dated 3-11-2018 vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B.

2. Election Petition by the Election Petitioner :—

2.1) The election petitioner has filed this election petition stating inter alia that on 6-10-2018, the Election Commission of India published in the Government official Gazette of Chhattisgarh, the election notification dated 6-10-2018 under Section 15 of the Act of 1951 and declared assembly election in the State of Chhattisgarh and notified the dates of Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) elections to the polls in two phases. In order to contest election from Constituency No. 15 Lailunga (ST), District Raigarh, the election petitioner herein obtained one set of nomina- tion paper from the Returning officer to file her nomination in the said election and on 31-10-2018 vide Exhibit P-1 she filed her nomination paper with affidavit and in reply to para (2) of Part 3A of the said nomination paper, she has categorically declared that she was not holding any office of profit under Central or State Government and it is the case of the election petitioner that the Returning Officer i.e. respondent No. 10 herein (deleted) called her in office and directed her to file second nomination paper with correct answer to para (2) of Part 3A of the said nomination paper whether she was holding any office under Central or State Government, and she was in- formed that in case the second nomination paper is not filed, the first nomination paper is likely to be rejeted, on which the petitioner, on 1-11-2018, filed her second set of nomination paper for the said constituency with affidavit vide Exhibit P-2 declaring at para (2) of Part 3A that she was holding the post of Rural Health Officer (Female) and due to long absence from service, the De- partment did not permit her presence and did not allow her to appear and join the service since last two years.

2.2) It is the case of the election petitioner that vide Exhibit P-3, the Returning Officer fixed the date of scrutiny on 1-11-2018/3-11-2018 and on 1-11-2018, she was served with document Exhibit P-4 asking her to produce documents relating to her Government service by 2-11-2018 up-to 3 p.m. and thereafter, in compliance thereof, she filed an affidavit Exhibit p-5 stating that she was in Government job as Rural Health Officer (RHO) (Female) in Sub-Health Centre, Kurrog & Bahirkela; Community Health Centre, Tamnar, and Primary Health Centre, Saraipali, and she was on leave from 28-7-2016 to 31-7-2016, thereafter, on 5-11-2016, when she communicated her joining, same was not accepted by letter dated 10-11-2018 and as such, she finally concluded that no departmen- tal enquiry was instituted against her and since she is not in service from 1-8-2016 to 2-11-2018, on the pressure of Jindal Company, her services have been terminated and thus, she is not holding any office of profit. Both the nomination papers were considered by the Returning Officer and vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B, the two nomination papers were rejected by the Retuning Officer on 3-11- 2018 holding that she has not filed any document to show that she has been terminated from service or she has resigned from service. On 20-11-2018, polling of that constituency took place and after 11-12-2018, counting process was completed and respondent No. 1 was declared elected from the said constituency which has been called in question by the election petitioner in this election petition.

2.3) It is the further case of the election petitioner that her nomination papers have improperly been rejected, as the first set of nomination paper filed by her to contest the election from ConstituencyNo. 15 Lailunga (ST), District Raigarh was not rejected by the Returning Officer till date, therefore, she was entitled to contest the election. It is further submitted that since the first set of nomination paper was rejected only after she filed the second set of nomination paper and since the 1st set of nomination paper had no objection/defect of any kind, therefore, the Returning Officer could not have rejected the first nomination paper by rejecting the second nomination, it is a clear case of{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू ख् र्झ्ी्र अ 1214 violation of Section 36 of the Act of 1951 and contrary to law and as such, both the nomination papers have improperly been rejected in violation of Section 36(3) of the Act of 1961. As such, her nomination papers have improperly been rejected and consequently, the election of respondent No. 1 deserves to be declared void.

3. Written Statement by the Returned Candidate :—

3.1) Written statement has been filed only by respondent No. 1 denying the averments made in the election petition stating that rejection of two nomination papers of the election petitioner by the Returning Officer is fully justified and the election petitioner in her election petition has not dis- puted the fact that she was working in the Department of Health as Rural Health Officer (Female) and the election petitioner was under misconception that due to her long absence and on account of some outside forces, her services have been terminated which is false to the knowledge of the petitioner herself. As such, the petitioner was in Government service on the date of filing nomina- tion paper and she could not file documents showing that she has resigned from service or she has been terminated from service in accordance with the relevant provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, (the Rules of 1966') and therefore she is not qualified for being elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly and her nomination has rightly been rejected.

3.2) Specific statement has been made by respondent No. 1 in paragraph 40 of the written statement stating inter alia that since the election petitioner was in Government service, the Returning Of- ficer vide Exhibit P-4 has rightly granted one day time till 2-11-2018 up to 3 p.m. to the election petitioner to file documents qua the Government service, but the petitioner could not substantiate that she has already resigned from service. It has been further averred that although the petitioner has filed affidavit vide Exhibit P-5 that her services have been terminated, but documents demon- strating her termination were not filed, therefore, vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B, the Returning Of- ficer was justified in rejecting her nomination papers, as the petitioner's services can be terminated except only in accordance with the Rules of 1966. Therefore, the nomination papers of the peti- tioner have rightly been rejected by the Returning Officer. It has also been pleaded that qualifica- tions for membership of a Legislative Assembly have been stated in Section 5 of the Act of 1951 which has to be read along with Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which provides that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assem- bly or Legislative Council of a State, if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder. Since the petitioner was holding the office of profit as she was, on the date of scrutiny of nomination paper, in Government service being Rural Health Officer (Female) which is an office of profit and which is a disqualification of membership being a Government servant, drawing or entitled to draw salary from the Government on account of holding post, therefore, the petitioner was disqualified under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and as such, the Returning Officer was fully justified in rejecting the nomina- tion papers after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and as such, the election petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Issues and Findings on the Issues :— On the basis of pleadings made by parties, following issues were framed and corresponding asnwers/findings are noted against each one of them :—

S. No. (1)

Issues (2)

Findings (3)

1. Whether the election of respondent No. 1 from "NO"

Lailunga Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 15 (Scheduled Tribe), Distt. Raigarh, is liable to be declared void under Section 100(1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for improper rejection of election petitioner's nomination paper by order dated 3-11-2018 by the Returning Officer on the ground of her being in service of the State Government ?

(1)

(2)

(3)

2. Whether the election petition as framed and This issue has already been adjudicated as filed is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance preliminary issue by order dated 26-7-2021 of the mandatory provisions of the Representa- and review petition against that order has tion of the People Act, 1951 including the also been dismissed by order dated 4-10- proviso to Section 83 of the said Act and Rule 2021. 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 ?

3. Relief and cost(s) which the election petitioner Election petitioner is not entitled for any relief as per paragraph 42 of this judgment.

is entitled for ?

5. In order to prove her case that her nomination papers were improperly rejected by the Returning Officer, though the election petitioner has entered into the witness box as PW-1, but she has not filed her affidavit under order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC and only in her examination-in-chief before the Court, she has exhibited documents Exhibits P-1 to P-5, P-6A & P-6B. When the evidence of the election petitioner commenced on 10-9-2021, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has filed an application under Order 18 rule 4 of the CPC that the election petitioner has not filed her affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, therefore, she is not entitled to record her evidence and prayed for a direction to the election petitioner to comply with the mandatory statutory provisions contained in Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC while proceeding with examina- tion/evidence of herself and/or her witnesses on which the order was reserved and to be considered at the time of final hearing/order.

6. Since the election petitioner did not choose to file affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC before commencement of trial of election petition and only choose to enter the witness box to prove the documents vide Exhibits P-1 to P-5, P-6A & P-6B, it is the choice of the election petitioner to file or not to file affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, but she cannot be compelled to do so as she had already entered the witness box on 10-9-2021 and she has been extensively cross-examined by and on behalf of respondent No. 1. As such, this application I.A. No. 12/2021 is accordingly disposed of.

7. Similarly, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 raised a strong objection that the documents Exhibits P-1 to P-6, P-6A & P-6B are inadmissible in evidence and the election petitioner cannot prove those documents. Documents Exhibits P-1 to P-6, P-6A & P-6B are public documents and certified copies of which have been produced before the court at the instance of the election petitioner and which have been marked as exhibits. It is well settled law that more marking of a document as an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of the document (See Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others V. Yelamarti Satyam and others¹). Therefore, the objec- tion raised on behalf of respondent No. 1 in this regard is hereby rejected.

8. In order to prove her case, the election petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and has produced documents Exhibits P-1 to P-5, P-6A & P-6B on 10-09-2021. Similarly. in opposition. though respondent No. 1 did not enter into the witness box, his election agent namely, Om Sagar Patel (DW-1) has entered into the witness box and Returning Officer Ashok Kumar Marbal has been examined as DW-2. Respondent No. 1 has brought documents Exhibits D-1 to D-8 on record. Ashok Kumar Marbal (DW-2) - Returning Officer has proved his signature on Exhibits P-4, P-6A & P-6B and also stated that he has rejected the nomination papers vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B by order dated 3-11-2018.

9. Submissions on behalf of the parties :—

9.1) Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the election petitioner, would submit as under :— 1. The Returning Officer — respondent No. 10 herein (deleted) has acted in improper manner firstly, by examining the nomination paper at the time of submission (before the date of scrutiny) and directed for submission of documents regarding Government service vide Exhibit P-4 and secondly, by rejecting both the nomination papers on the same date on the ground of the election petitioner being in Government service and has not filed documents showing resignation or otherwise, particularly when the election patitioner in her first nomination, has not said that she is a holder of the office of profit, as such, her nomination papers were improperly rejected.

2. The election petitioner was not in Government service as Rural Health Officer (Female) at the relevant point of time as her services were terminated on the pressure applied by Jindal company and she is not in service from 1-8-2016 to 2-11-2018 and she was not holding the office of profit as she has clearly stated in the affidavit filed before the Return- ing Officer vide Exhibit P-5 on 2-11-2018. The order of the Returning Officer vide Exhib- its P-6A & P-6B was totally a wrong and perverse order and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is also violative of Sections 30, 35 & 36 of the Act of 1951. The election petitioner was never holding any office of profit and she has been terminated and is covered by Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and relied upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts :—

1. Mohinder Singh Gill and another V. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others² (Supreme Court).

2. Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage Board, etc. V. R. Rajappa and others³ (Supreme Court).

3. The Divisional Forest Manager v. Shri Vinayak Kume⁴ (Bombay High Court).

4. State of Rajasthan and other v. Harish Chandra Sharma and others⁵ (Rajasthan High Court).

5. Mukundbhi Mangaldas Shrimali v. State of Gujarat⁶ (Gujarat High Court).

9.2) Mr. B. P. Sharma and Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, would submit that the Returning Officer has acted as per the directions contained in the Handbook for Returning Officer 2018 issued by the State Election Commission, which provides that he shall take decision by conducting preliminary examination of nomination papers immediately upon receiving the same and asking for submission of relevant documents relating to Government sevice. Thus, as per the directions/instructions, the Returning Officer has to scrutinize all the nomination papers together in view of the provisions contained in clause 6.5 of the aforesaid Handbook and as such, both the nomination papers were rightly rejected by the Returning Officer on 3-11-2018 vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B, Since the election petitioner was in Government service, Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, bars a Government servant to take part in an election to the legislature or the local authority. Similarly, unless an express order after departmen- tal enquiry is passed, merely on account of absence from duty after expiry of leave, it cannot be presumed that her services have been terminated in view of Rule 24 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977. It was also submitted that since the election petitioner was admit- tedly in Government service and she was holding the office of profit in terms of Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, she was disqualified from contesting election and being chosen as a Member of Legislative Assembly and as such, her nomination papers were rightly rejected by the Returning Officer and thus, the election petition deserves to be dismissed.

10. Except respondent No. 1 other respondents have not chosen to appear and contest the election petition and no written statement was filed on their behalf, as such, they have been proceeded ex parte in this election petition.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

12. Reasons for finding on issues :—

Issue No. 1 :— For the sake of convenience, issue No. 1 is divided in two parts in the following manner :— 1. Whether, on the date of filing nomination papers vide Exhibits P-1 & P-2, the election petitioner was in Government service in the Department of Health, as Rural Health Officer (Female) under the State of Chhattisgarh and as such, the Returning Officer - respondent No. 10 herein (deleted) was justified in rejecting her nomination papers on the ground of she being in Government service by taking both the nomination papers simultaneously ?

and/or

2. Whether, the election petitioner was disqualified for being chosen as a Member of Legislative Assembly on account of her holding the post of RHO (F) under the Government of Chhattisgarh being an office of profit and therefore in terms of Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India disqualified from being chosen as a Member of Legislative Assembly ?

13. The election petitioner being an elector for Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 15 Lailunga (ST), District Raigarh, in order to contest election from the said constituency submitted her first nomination paper to the Returning Officer vide Exhibit P-1 on 31-10-2018 in which in Part 3A, para (2), she has clearly stated that she is not holding any office of profit either under the state Government or under the Union of India and thereafter, she submitted second nomination paper vide Exhibit P-2 on 1-11-2018 at 2.45 p.m. clearly stating in Part 3A, para (2), that she was holding the office of profit as Rueal Health Officer (Female) in the Department of Health, but on account of her long absence, her joining has not been accepted and for last two years, she has not been allowed to work in the district office. The Returning Officer vide Exhibit P- 3 after Preliminary examination on 1-11-2018 at 3.12 p.m. issued document Exhibit P-4 directing the election petitioner to produce documents qua her Government service by 2-11-2018 till 3p.m. in compli- ance of Exhibit P-4, the election petitioner filed affidavit Exhibit P-5 in which she has stated that from 8-8- 2002 to 31-7-2016, she was in regular Government service as RHO (F) in Sub-Health Centre, Kurrog & Bahirkela; Community Health Centre, Tamnar, and Primary Health Centre, Saraipali, and she was on leave from 28-7-2016 to 31-7-2016, but thereafter, she has not been allowed to join, and finally, in paragraph 10, she has concluded that from 1-8-2016 to 2-11-2018, for two years, she is not in Government service and under the pressure of Jindal company, her services have been terminated and she is not holding office either under the Central or State Government. The election petitioner has filed documents in nine pages along with the affidavit which have been produced and exhibited by respordent No. 1 and Proved by the election petitioner vide Exhibits D-1 to D-8. On receipt of documents Exhibit P-5 and Exhibits D-1 to D-8, the Returning Officer vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B, rejected both the nomiation papers, as the election petitioner herself has admitted being in Government service but she has not produced any document of resignation demonstrating that her resignation has been accepted by the competent authority within the time limit fixed and accordingly, proceeded to reject the nominations vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B and thereafter, the elec- tion as scheduled was held in which respondent No. 1 has been declared elected which is sought to be challenged by the petitioner on the sole ground that her nomination papers have been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.

14. The first and foremost objection that has been taken on behalf of the election petitioner is that both the nomination papers Exhibits P-1 & P-2 were considered and rejected simultaneously, they ought to have been considered separately it is the case of the petitioner that the Returning Officer made preliminary examination of her first nomination paper and directed her to file second nomination paper, and under the threat of rejection of her first nomination paper, she has filed the second nomination paper.

15. Mr. Ashok Kumar Marbal, who at the relevant point of time functioned as Returning Officer, has been examined as DW-2. In his evidence before the Court, he has clearly stated that following the procedure prescribed in the Handbook for Returning Officer 2018 issued by the State Election Commission and the procedure prescribed for scrutiny of nomination papers and upon preliminary examination as prescribed in clause 5.11.1 and in view of the fact that the petitioner herself having stated in Exhibit P-2 that she is holding the office of profit being RHO (F) in the Department of Health and her joining has not been accepted on account of long absence, Exhibit P-4 was issued to her in the format prescribed in the said Handbook to which the petitioner has submitted reply in shape of affidavit Exhibit P-5 and as per the procedure contained in clause 6.5 of the aforesaid Handbook, both the nomination papers have scrutinized simultaneously.

16. In order to decide the said plea, it would be appropriate to notice clause 6.5.1. of the Handbook for Return- ing Officer 2018 contained in clause 6.5. which provides for Scrutinization of all nomination papers. Clause 6.5.1. states as under :—

"6.5. All Nomination Papers to be Scrutinized

6.5.1. Returning Officer should then take up nomination papers one after another and scrutinize them, If more than one nomination paper has been presented by or on behalf of one candidate, he/she should take them up together and scrutinize them one after another. It whould not be correct or legal to pass over other nomination papers of a candidate without scrutiny, merely because one ore more nomination papers of that candidate have been already found valid by the Returning Officer."

17. A careful persual of the aforesaid provision would show that if more than one nomination paper has been presented by or on behalf of one candidate, all nomination papers have to be taken together and have to be scrutininzed one after another, meaning thereby, all the nomination papers have to be taken together and they are not supposed to be decided separately. in the instant case, since the election petitioner has filed two nomination papers vide Exhibits P-1 & P-2 for contesting the election in Lailunga Assembly Constituency No. 15 (ST), both the nomination papers were considered together by the Returning Officer and in view of reply made by the petitioner in Part 3A, para (2) of Exnibit P-2 that she was holding the office of profit but she has not been allowed to join, Exhibit P-4 was issued to the petitioner and thereafter, considering her affidavit Exhibit P-5, both the nomination papers were rejected vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B. As such, the Returning Officer has rightly followed the procedure and rightly took-up the nomination papers Exhibits P- 1 & P-2 together and rightly considered the same together as per the procedure prescribed by considering the two nomination papers filed by one candidate and thus, no objection could have been taken in that respect that both the nomination papers could have been decided separately. The procedure followd by the Returning Officer in considering both the nomination papers simultaneously is in accordance with clause 6.5, of the Handbook for Returning Officer 2018 and otherwise also, it is established practice to consider the two nomination papers of one candidte together, which cannot be said to be erroneous of illegal in law. I do not find any merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the nomination papers could not have been considered simultaneously at the time of scrutiny and therefore the nomination paper Exhibit P-1 could have been rejected as there was no objection in that regard.

18. It is the case of the election petitioner that though she was holding the post of Rural Health Officer (Female) in the Department of Health as a regular Government servant from 8-8-2002 to 31-7-2016 and she remained on leave from 28-7-2016 to 31-7-2016, but thereafter, when she submitted letter dated 5-11-2016 for join- ing, it was not accepted and number of letters vide Exhibits D-1 to D-3 were submitted by her for joining and finally, she was given a letter by the Block Medical Officer, Tamnar to obtain permission from the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Distt. Raigarh to join in the Government service, vide Exhibit D-4, thereafter, she also submitted letters to the CMHO, Distt. Raigarh, videe Exhibit D-5 to D-8, but she was not allowed to join in service and thus, she is not in Government service from 1-8-2016 to 2-11-2018 and as such, her services have been terminated on the pressure of Jindal company and she is not holding any office of profit under the State or the Central Government. Document Exhibit P-2 is the document of the election petitioner herself in which she has stated in Part 3A, para (2), as under :—

र्झ्ी्र ग

;ऽध्ध्य् र्उीर्न्ी झ्र्न्ीर् ँीद्ध

;अद्ध --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

;ूद्ध र्घी ऽध्ध्य् र्झ्ीन्ई ॉर्न्ीन्र् ी र्न्ीद्द ॉर्न्ीन् ऽर्क्तीध्र् ी"य्न् र्९ीझ्र् ी ॰ र्र्क्तीीर्ह्यी न् न्२र्न्ी २भन् घ् र् ैीण् प्रर्झ्ी्र (R.H.O.F.) ;२र्न्ीञध्२न्ध्ञद्धण् प्र॰ २र्न्ीञए र्र्क्तीीप्रन्ई ॰ र्न्नीभश्न् ९ञष् ॉ ॉ ऽींप्रैई न्२न् र् ीन्र्ह्यी प्रर्झ्ी्र न्ध् न्प्रैप्रईर् ीह्म २न्ध्ञ ध् ू र्र्ऽी ॉ ींर्ी प्रँर्९ीर्र् ीीय्९ ॉर् ीय् ञ न्प्रैई २र्न्ी ध् ऽींप्रई २न्ध्ञ ॰ध् ्र"य्न् २भन्ण्र्झ्ी्र अ , {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू 1219 19. It is appropriate to mention here that Exhibit P-2 is the document of the election petitioner herself and in her cross-examination, paragraph 5, she has clearly stated the aforesaid fact to be correct. Similarly in the affidavit submitted by her before the Returning Officer (Exhibit P-5), she has specifically stated that she was in Government service from 8-8-2002 to 31-7-2016 as RHO (F) in Sub-Health Centre, Kurrog & Bahirkela, Community Health Centre, Tamnar; and Primary Health Centre, Saraipali. As such, the fact of the election petitioner being a Government servant on the date of nomination is not in dispute. What she has stated in Exhibit P-2, in Part 3A, para (2) as well as in Exhibit P-5 is that she was not allowed to join despite several letters Exhibits D-1 to D-3 & D-5 to D-8 and no departmental enquiry was held against her and she is not in Government service from 1-8-2016 to 2-11-2018 for last two years and on the pressure of Jindal company, her services have been terminated and she is not holding the office of profit and same amounts to oral termination of service.

20. As such, it is duly established from the aforesaid facts that the election petitioner was appointed as regular Government servant in the Department of Health as RHO (F) in August, 2008, she was a regular Govern- ment servant and she continued on the post up to 31-7-2016. On 28-7-2016, she proceeded on leave up to 31-7-2016, but thereafter, on 5-11-2016, it is her case that she was not allowed to join in the Government service which is apparent from Exhibit D-1 to D-3 and vide Exhibit D-4, the Block Medical Officer, Tamnar asked her to seek permission from the CMHO, Distt. Raigarh which she submitted asking for her joining vide Exhibit D-5 to D-8, but she was not permitted to join. As such it is a case of absence from service after expiry of leave.

21. Rule 24 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 (for short, 'the Rules of 1977') provides the consequence of absence from duty after expiry of leave. It states as under :—

"24. Absence after expiry of leave.—

(1) Unless the authority competent to grant leave extends the leave, Government servant who remains absent after the end of leave is entitled to no leave salary for the period of such absence and that period shall be debited against his leave account as though it were half pay leave to the extent such leave is due, the period in excess of such leave due being treated as extraordinary leave.

(2) Willful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action."

22. A careful perusal of the aforesaid rule would show that in case of long absence or remaining absent after the end of leave without grant by the competent authority, the Government servant is entitled to no leave salary for the period of such absence and that period shall be debited against his leave accout. Similarly, by virtue of sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 of the Rules of 1977, willful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action. Pursuant to the departmental proceeding. a Government servant can be inflicted the penalties set-out in Rule 10 of the Rules of 1966 which can be minor penalties as well as major penalties and which rests exclusively within the jurisdiction and domain of the disciplinary authority. However, in view of Rule 24(2) of the Rules of 1977, long absence after expiry of leave will not amount to authomatic termination of service as for termination of service there has to be a departmental enquiry in case of regular Government servant in accordance with the Rules of 1966 and penalty of termi- nation can be inflicted as major penalty after recording a finding of grave misconduct, except in cases covered by 2nd proviso to sub-clause(2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove/reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry.

23. Admittedly, in the present case, on the own showing of the election petitioner vide Exhibit P-5 in paragraph 9, it has clearly been stated that no departmental enquiry was instituted against her and as such, there is no order of termination passed against her. The petitioner has only stated in paragraph 10 of Exhibit P-5 that she is not in Government service with effect from 1-8-2016 to the date of scrutiny i.e. 2-11-2018 and her services have been terminated that too on the pressure of Jindal company and she is not holding any office of profit which the Returning Officer didi not accept holding that since the petitioner is in regular govern- ment servant and she has not produced the order of termination or letter of resignation within the time limit given by him, therefore, in that view of the matter, her nomination papers are rejected. and thus, the Return- ing officer didi not accept the fact of oral termination from service claimed by the election petitioner.

24. At this stage, it would be extremely relevant to notice Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (for short, the Rules of 1965') by which the Government servants are barred from participating in the election of any legislature or local authority. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965 states as under :—

"5. Taking part in politics and elections.— (1) to (3) XXX XXX

(4) No Government servant shall canvas or otherwise interfere with, or use his influence in connection with or take part in, an election to any legislature or local authority :

Provided that —

(i) a Government servant qualified to vote at such election may exercise his right to vote, but where he does so, he shall give no indication of the manner in which he proposes to vote or has voted ;

(ii) a Government servant shall not be deemed to have contravened the provisions of this sub-rule by reason only that he assists in the conduct of an election in the due performance or a duty imposed on him by or under any law for the time being in force.

Explanation.— The display by a Government servant on his person, vehicle or residence of any electoral symbol shall amount to using his infliuence in connection with an election within the meaning of this sub-rule." 25. A focused glance of the aforesaid provision would show that the legislature has designedly thought it expedient to restrain/injunct the government servant eiher to canvas or otherwise interfere with, or use his influence in connection with or take part in, an election to any legislature or local authority. The legislative object of enacting such rule is that the status enjoyed by the candidates shall not be allowed to be prejudicial via-a-vis candidates who do not enjoy such a status. As such. the election petitioner being a regular Govern- ment servant on the date of filling nomination was by virtue of Rule 5(4) of the Rules of 1965 specifically prohibited from taking part in the election to the legislature, as the said provision is imperative in nature being the legislative injunction restraining the Government servant from taking part in election to any legislature or local authority, in any manner whatsoever.

26. In the matter of Chet Ram V. Jit Singh⁷, the Supreme Court considered rule 22(4) of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 which contained prohibition against taking part in election to any legislative or local authority and held that since there is a specific prohibition in statutory rules against taking part in elections of legislative assembly or local authority, the candidate is disqualified from constesting in the election. It has been observed in paragraph 9 of the report as under :—

"9. Indisputably, the terms and conditions of a Gramin Dak Sewak are governed by the provisions of the Rules ;

sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 whereof reads as under :

"22. (4) No Sevak shall canvass or otherwise interfere with or use his influence in con- nection with, or take part in an election to any legislative or local authority." The said Rules were framed in terms of proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The terms and conditions of employment of a Gramin Dak Sewak are governed by statutory rules. The Rules framed in terms of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India indisputably govern only government employees. It was, therefore, for appellant to show that he was not governed by the Rules."

27. Since the election petitioner was specifically prohibited by sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965 from taking part in election and the said rule is statutory in nature, the petitioner contested the election in direct conflict with specific prohibition contained in the above-stated rule applicable to her.

28. In view of the above-stated finding, the plea of termination advanced by learned consel for the petitioner has no force and accordingly it is rejected. Similarly, the judgments cited by Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel, are clearly inapplicable and distinguisheble to the facts of the present case.

29. Now, the question for consideration is, whether the election petitioner was disqualified for being chosen as Member of Legislative Assembly on account of her holding the office of profit under the Government of Chhattisgarh ?

30. In order to adjudicate the plea, it would be appropriate to notice the provision contained in Article 191 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India which states as under :—

"191. Disqualifications for membership.— (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State —

(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder,"

31. The principal contained in Article 191 of the Constitution of India is based on sound public policy of ensuing impartiality and neutrality in public service and avoidance of conflict between duty and interest of an elected member enabling him to carry-on his duties, freely and fearlessly without being subjected to any governmental pressure thereby maintaining purity of legislature. The object of said provision Article 191 (1)(a) of the Constitution is to disqualify a person from membership of legislature, if he/she is obliged to the Government for an office which carries benefit or profit and thus, compromising his/her independence.

32. An 'office of profit' is an office which is capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain. In order to be an office of profit, the office must carry various pecuniary benefits or must be capable of yielding pecuniary benefits such as providing for official accommodation or even a chauffeur driven car. Holding an office the Central or state Government to which some pay, salary emolument, remuneration or non-compensatory allowance are attached is "holding an office of profit". The question whether a persons holds an office of profit is required to b interpreted in a realistic manner.

33. For deciding the question as to whether one is holding an office of profit or not, what is relevant is, whether the office is capable or "yielding" a profit or "pecuniary gain" and not whether the person actually obtained monetary gain. If the 'pecuniary' gain is receivable in connection with the office, then it becomes an office of profit, irrespective of the fact whether such pecuniary gain is actually received or not. If the office carries with it, or entitles the holder to any pecuniary gain other than reimbursement of out of pocket/actual expenses, then the office will be an office of profit. (See Jaya Bachchan V. Union of India⁸.) 34. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar V. Agadi Sanganna Andanappa⁹ while taking into consideration its earlier decision in the matter of Ravanna Subanna v. G. S. Kaggeerappa¹⁰ laid down the tests for finding out whether an office in question is an office under a Government and whether it is an office of profit. It has been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar (supra) as under :—

"14. Therefore before the provisions of that Article can be attracted, it must be established that he was holding an office under the Union or the State Government and that that office was an office of profit and thereafter we must see whether the disqualification relating to that office has been removed by any Parliamentary legislation. In other words, the office in question must have been held under a Government and to that some pay, salary, emoluments or allowance is attached. The word 'profit' connotes the idea of pecuniary gain. If there is really a gain, its quantum or amount{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू ख् र्झ्ी्र अ 1222 would not be material; but the amount of money receivable by a person in connection with the office he holds may be material in deciding whether the office really carries any profit-see Revenna Subanna v. G. S. Kaggerappa (AIR 1954 SC 653). This Court in several decisions has laid down the tests for finding out whether an office in question is an office under a government and whether it is an office of profit. Those tests are : (1) Whetther the Government makes the appointment; (2) Whether the Government has the right to remove or dismiss the holder; (3) Whether the Govern- ment pays the remuneration; (4) what are the functions of the holder? Does he perform them for the Government and (5) Does the Government exercise any control overr the performance of those functions? see abdul Shakur v. Rikhab Chand¹¹; Ramappa v. Sangappa¹²; and Govinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad¹³. ......"

35. Similarly, in the matter of Biharilal Dobray v. Roshan Lal Dobray¹⁴, the Supreme Court while considering the earlier decisions and highlighting the object of enacting Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, held in paragraph 5 as under :—

"5. The object of enacting Article 191 (1) (a) is plain. A person who is elected to a Legislature should be free to carry on his duties fearlessly without being subjected to any kind of governmental pressure. If such a person is holding an office which brings him remuneration and the Government has a voice in his continuance in that office, there is every likelihood of such person succumbing to the wishes of Government. Article 191 (1)(a) is intended to eliminate the possibility of a conflict between duty and interest and to maintain the purity of the Legislatures. The term "office of profit under the Government" used in the above clause though indeterminate is an expression of wider import than a post held under the Government which is dealt with in Part XIV of the Constitution. For holding an office of profit under the Government a person need not be in the service of the Government and there need not be any relationship of master and servant between them. An office of profit involves two elements, namely, that there should be an office and that it should carry some remuneration. In order to determine whether a person holds an office of profit under the Govern- ment several tests are ordinarily applied such as whether the Government makes the appointment, whether the Government has the right to remove or dismiss the holder of the office, whether the Government pays the remuneration, whether the functions performed by the holder are carried on by him for the Government and whether the Government has control over the duties and functions of the holder. Whether an office in order to be characterised as an office of profit under the Govern- ment should satisfy all these tests or whether any one or more of them may be decisive of its true nature has been the sbject matter of several cases decided by this Court but no decision apppears to lay down conclusively the characteristics of an office of profit under the Government although the Court has no doubt determined in each case whether the particular office involved in it was such an office or not having regard to its features."

36. Similarly, in the matter of Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Raju v. Vyrichertla Pradeep Kumar Dev and an- other¹⁵, again the Supreme Court set-out some of the tests/principles for determining whether a person holds an office of profit under the Government and summarized the legal principles in paragraphs 11 and 18 as under :—

"11. On a careful examination of the ratio laid down in the above-mentioned cases some of the tests or principles that emerge for determining whether a person holds an office of profit under the Govern- ment, may be summarised thus:

"(1) The power of the Government to appoints a person in office or to revoke his appointment at its discretion. The mere control of the Government over the authority having the power to appoints, dismiss, or control the working of the officer employed by such authority does not disqualify that officer from being a candidate for election as a member of the Legislature.

11 1958 SCR 387

12 1959 SCR 1167

13 (1964) 4 SCR 311

14 (1984) 1 SCC 551

15 (1992) 4 SCC 404

(2) The payment from out of the Government revenues are important factors in determining whether a person is holding an office of profit or not of the Government. Though payment form a source other than the Government revenue is not always a decisive factor.

(3) The incorporation of a body corporate and entrusting the functions to it by the Govern- ment may suggest that the statute intended it to be a statutory corporation independent of the Government. But it is not conclusive on the question whether it is really so indepen- dent. Sometimes, the form may be that of a body corporate independent of the Govern- ment, but in substance, it may just be the alter ego of the Government itself.

(4) The true test of determination of the said question depends upon the degree of control the Government has over it, the extent of control exercised by very other bodies or commit- tees, and its composition, the degree of its dependence on the Government for its financial needs and the functional aspect, namely, whether the body is discharging any important Governmental function or just some function which is merely optional from the points of view of the Government."

18. Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a) are incorporated in order to eliminate or reduce the risk of conflict between the duty and interest amongst the members of the Legislature and to ensure that the Legislature does not contain persons who have received benefits from the Executive and who consequently being under an obligation might be amenable to its influence. Therefore this object must be borne in mind in interpreting these Articles. It is in this context the words "under the Government" so far as the present case is concerned, become more relevant and should be exam- ined from that perspective keeping in view the necessary power to appoint or remove." 37. In the matter of Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay and others¹⁶, the Supreme Court took under review the earlier decisions on the point and observed in paragraphs 24, 25, 26 and 27 as under :—

"24. In Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Raju v. Vyricherla Pradeep Kumar Dev, (1992) 4 SCC 404, the appellant had been appointed as a single teacher in a primary school by the Project officer of the Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA). The High Court held that the appeliant was hold- ing an "office of profit" and had, thus, incurred a disqualification envisaged by Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution. Setting aside the order of the High Court, and allowing the appeal it was held by this Court: SCC p. 428-29, para 29

"29. What emerges from the above discussion is that the Government has some control over the ITDA which is set up as a project, since it provides funds and sanctions the posts; the District Collector is appointed as Project Officer and some officers are ex officio members of the ITDA which carries out the object of providing compulsory education in tribal areas. But the ITDA is a registered sociaty having its own constitution. Though the Project Officer is the District Collector, he acts as a different entity. The power to appoint or to remove teachers is not with the Government but with the Project Officer. The Government may have control over the appointing authority but has no direct control over the teachers. The small post that appellant holds in ITDA is only that of a teacher who is directly under the control of the Project Officer. In such a situation the question of any conflict between his duties and interests as an elected member does not arise since it cannot be said that he, as a teacher, can be subjected to any kind of pressure by the Government which has neither the power to appoint him nor to remove him from service. Taking a practical view of the substance of these factors into consideration, we are of the view that the appellant cannot be held to be holding an office of profit under the Government".

(emphasis supplied) 16 (2001) 7 SCC 425{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू ख् र्झ्ी्र अ 1224 25. From a resume of precedents noticed above we find that in order to attract disqualification contained in Article 102(1)(a), a person must not only be holding "an officer" but that office must be "an office of profit" and should be "under the Government" and should be an office other than an office declared by the completent legislature by law not to dis- qualify its holder. The first question which comes to the fore, therefore is as to when can a person be said to be "holding an office of profit" under the Government.

26. The expression "office of profit" has not been defined either in the Constitution or in the Representation of the People Act. In common parlance, the expression "profit" connotes an idea of some pecuniary gain. If there is really some gain, its label — "honorarium" — "remuneration" — "Salary" is not material — it is the substance and not the form which matters and even the quantum or amount of "pecuniary gain" is not relevant — what needs to be found out is whether the amount of money receivable by the person concerned in connection with the office he holds, gives to him some "Pecuniary gain", other than as "compensation" to defray his out-of-pocket expenses, which may have the possibility to bring that person under the influence of the executive, which is conferring that benefit on him.

27. With a view to determine whether the office concerned is an "office of profit", the court must, however, take a realistic view. Taking a broad or general view, ignoring essential details is not desirable nor is it permissible to take a narrow view by which technicality may overtake reality. It is a rule of interpretation of statutes that the statutory provisions are so construed as to avoid absurdity and to further rather than defeat or frustrate the object of the enactment. Courts, therefore, while construing a statute avoid strict con- struction by construing the entire Act. (See with advantage Ashok Kumar Bhattacharyya v. Ajoy Biswas¹⁷, Tinsukhia Electric supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam¹⁸, and CIT v. J.H. Gotla¹⁹.)"

38. In Jaya Bachchan (supra), the Supreme Court has considered clause (1) (a) of Article 102 of the Constitution of India, which is pari materia to Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution, and following the earlier decisions, held as under :—

"6. Clause (1) (a) of Article 102 provides that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament if he holds any office of profit under the Gov- ernment of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder. The term "holds an office of profit" though not defined, has been the subject-matter of interpretation, in several decisions of this Court. An office of profit is an office which is capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain. Holding an office under the Central or State Government, to which some pay, salary, emolument, remuneration or non-compensatory allowance is attached, is "holding an office of profit". The question whether a person holds an office of profit is required to be interpreted in a realistic manner. Nature of the payment must be considered as a matter of substance rather than of form, Nomenclature is not important. In fact, mere use of the word "honorarium" cannot take th payment out of the purview of profit, if there is pecuniary gain for the recipient. Payment of honorarum, in addition to daily allowances in the nature of compensatory allowances, rent free accommodation and chauffeur driven car at State expense, are clearly in the nature of remuneration and a source of pecuniary gain and hence consti- tute profit. For deciding the question as to whether one is holding an office of profit or not, what is relevant is whether the office is capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain and not whether the person actually obtained a monetary gain. If the "pecuniary gain" is "receivable" in connection with the office then it becomes an office of profit, irrespective of whether such pecuniary gain is actually received or not. If the office carries with it, or entitles the holder to, any pecuniary gain other than reimbursement of out of pocket/actual expenses, then the office will be an office of profit for the purpose of Article 102(1)(a). This position of law stands settled for over half a century commencing from the decisions of Ravanna Subanna v. G.S. Kaggeerappa, AIR (1954) SC 653; Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar v. Agadi Sanganna Andanappa, (1971) 3 SCC 870; Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Raju v. Vyricherla Pradeep Kumar Dev. (1992) 4 SCC 404 and Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay, (2001) 7 SCC 425."

17 (1985) 1 SCC 151

18 (1989) 3 SCC 709

19 (1985) 4 SCC 343

39. In the matter of State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna and others v. Janakdhari Prasad and others²⁰, the Supreme Court has held that the nature of disqualification has to be strictly construed keeping in mind that right to contest an election is not a fundamental right out the said right may be curtailed under valid statutory provision.

40. Finally, in the matter of Narayan Dinbaji Jambhule v. Dr. Deorao Madguji Holi and others²¹, the Bombay High Court in facts similar to the case in hand held that respondent No. 5 therein who was employed as Medical Officer, in Class-II, Group "A" Services and was in employment of State Government on the day on which he submitted nomination for Assembly Elections, held office of profit as contemplated by Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India and thus, he stands disqualified to be chosen as member of Legisla- tive Assembly as per Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution and Section 100(1)(a) of the Act of 1951 and quashed the election of the returned candidate (respondent No. 5) holding that he was not qualified to be chosen as a member of Legislative Assembly.

41. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid legal proposition flowing from the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court in Narayan Dinbaji Jambhule (su- pra), it is quite vivid that the election petitioner being Rural Health Officer (Female) and thereby a regular Government servant on the roll of the State Government on the date on which she submitted nomination paper for assembly election, and though on the date of submission of nomination paper, she was not actually working on account of her joining not being accepted by the competent authority, but she was admittedly, a Government servant who was entitled to draw, salary and allowances, as such, was holding the office of profit and therefore disqualified from being chosen as a member of Legislative Assembly and therefore the Returning Officer is justified in rejecting her nomination papers vide Exhibits P-6A & P-6B. The election petitioner has failed to demonstrate that her nomination papers were improperly rejected by the Returning Officer within the meaning of Section 100(1)(c) of the Act of 1951.

Relief and cost :—

42. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the election petition deserves to be and is accord- ingly dismissed. in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own cost(s).

43. A copy of this order be sent to the State Election Commission forthwith as required by Section 103 of the Act of 1951.

Sd/- SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, Election Judge.

By order,

Sd/- (NARENDRA N. BUTOLIA) Senior Principal Secretary, Election Commission of India.

र्न्ीींन्ए प्रर्॰ीञ गर् ि"य्न् ूर्ूिू

ण् ूअर्ध्ीन्ध्प्रन्प्र२य्न्ईध्ूर्अिद्व.ूूध्अ्‌गद्यण्{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्न्ीद्द प्रर्र्क्तीीॉर्झ्ी र्प्रीय्.ूर्अिद्व र्॰ीभर्न्ी र्प्रीय् ९त्र्र् ी९ ऽध्ध्य् र्उीर्न्ी र्९ी र्॰ीप्र९ न् ञ ऽॉ९ न्२न्र् ीध् र्क्तीर्५ीर् ींीन् भप्रर्न्ॉी ञ ींन् र्९ी९ ष्र्र्ीिं९ए प्रँर्९ी.र्न्ीींन्र् ी ईध् ऽय् ध्र् ीर्९ीप्रर्क्ती प्र९ प्रन्प्र२य्न्ई र्र्र्ीिंीप्रऽई प्रर् ँी ॉञष्ञर्क्तीध् र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्रए "य्न् प्र॰}९ध् र्ऽी॰र्५ी ॉञर्ऊी {न्ण््रण्.प्रण्ॉण्ध्ट्टय् ऽींण्.अध्लद्यध्ूर्अिद्वए प्रर्॰ीञ अद्य "य्न्ए ूर्ूिू ॉय् ॉर्ीर्र्क्तीीन्र्ह्यी ध्र्र् ँीीन्ध् २न्ईींर् ीप्रर्५ीई ध्र् ँीईध् २भन्ण्

;झ्ींर्५ीर् ी॰द्ध

ींऊ र्प्रीय् र्॰ीर्प्रीन्ध्ण् 20 (2018) 8 SCC 1 21 2017 (2) Mh. L. J. 807{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू ख् र्झ्ी्र अ 1226

र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्र

र्प्रीय् ॉ॰ए ऽर्र्५ीी र्न्ीत्र्न्ए "य् प्र॰}९ध्.अअर्र्र्अििि

"य् प्र॰}९ध्ए प्रर्॰ीञ अद्य "य्न्ए ूर्ूिूूद्य भर्र्५ीीए अ्‌लल ;र्५ीद्ध

ॉण् {न्ण््रण्ध्प्रण्ॉण्ध्ट्टय् ऽींण्.अध्लद्यध्ूर्अिद्वण्ई— र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्र र्उीर्न्ी {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्न्ीद्द ॉ प्रर्र्क्तीी ॉर्झ्ीर् ीर् ॉीर्र्क्तीीन्र्ह्यी र्प्रीय् ूर्अिद्व ध् र्र्र्ीिंीऽर्र्ह्यीी ॉर् ीन् ॉञर्ऊी "य्न्ॉध्र्ऽी"य्न्ध्र्ण्ीण्ध्क्ष्क्ष्ध्ूर्अिद्व प्रर्॰ीञ क्ष् ऽघट्टन्ष्न्ए ूर्अिद्व ँप्रन् ध् ्र"य् ध्ण्र् ीय् र्ऽींॉीन्ए ई्रर्र्ह्यीी ध् र्ईीन्ध् अअ प्र॰ॉट्टष्न्ए ूर्अिद्व ध्ण्

र्ऽीभन् ई—ए र्९ी प्रईप्रप्रर्क्तीह्न ऽप्रर्क्तीप्रए अ्‌अद्य ध् र्र्क्तीीर्न्ी द्यद्व र्ऽींॉीन्ए र्प्रीय् ९त्र्र् ी९ ह्न ऽध्ध्य्र् ीए र्प्रीय्प्रई ऽध्ध्य् र्प्रीय् ध् र्ईीन्ध् ॉ गर् िप्रर्॰ीञ झ्ध्ईन् र्प्रीय् ऽ ९ ध् ॉ२न्ध् प्रई प्रँर्९ी र्प्रीय् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध्र् ी र्॰ीप्र९ न्ध् २र्न्ीईध् २भन् र्ऽीभन् ई—ए लद्य.र्क्तीन्ॉर्ध्ीञ प्रर्र्क्तीी ॉर्झ्ी र्प्रीय्र्र् ीी ॉप्र२न्ई ॉञष्ञप्रर्क्तीई प्रन्न्र्प्र्र ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध् र्उीर्न्ी न्घई र्प्रीय् प्रन्र्र्ह्यीी अअ प्र॰ॉट्टष्न्ए ूर्अिद्वर् ी र्र्र्ीिंीप्रऽई प्र ्र ण् "न्ॉर् ीन्ए र्प्रीय् ९ र्॰ीप्र९ न् ध् ऽप्रह्मई र्ईीन्ध् अर् िँन्ध्ए ूर्अि्‌ ध्य

र्ऽीभन् ई—ए प्रँर्९ी र्प्रीय् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध्ए र्न्ीींन् {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्उीर्न्ी ैईींई र्ऽीभन् ींऊ र्प्रीय् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध्ए {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्उीर्न्ी ऽ प्रर्॰ीञ ू्‌ ँन्ध्ए ूर्अि्‌ र्ी ॉञण् ूअर्ध्ीन्ध्प्रण्ॉण्ींण्ध्"य्न्ण्"य्न्ण्ण्ध्ूर्अि्‌ध्द्व्र ँप्रन् ऽ्रप्रऽई प्रर्॰ीञ अअ ँन्ध्ए ूर्अि्‌ ध् प्रर्न्ीय्न् र्ऽींॉीन् र्ीध् र्क्तीर्५ीर् ींीन् भप्रर्न्ॉीर् ँी {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् लद्य.र्क्तीन्ॉर्ध्ीञ प्रर्र्क्तीी ॉर्झ्ी र्प्रीय्र्र् ीी ॉ र्प्रीय् ९त्र्र् ी९ ऽञष्त्र्न्र्न्ी"य्न्न्र् ीन्ध्य् र्ऽी "न्प्रह्यत्र्र्न्ी ऽध्ध्य् २भञन्ए प्रप्रर्क्ती र्उीर्न्ीर् ीर्प्रीई न्ध्प्रई ॉ ऽ र्प्रीय् र् ीर् ी"य्न् झ्ध् र्९ी र्॰ीप्र९ न् ञ प्र९ न्२न् २भञन्ण्

र्ऽीभन् ई—ए प्रँर्९ी र्प्रीय् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध्ए र्न्ीींन् {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्ऽीभन् ींऊ र्प्रीय् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध्ए {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् ध् प्रर्न्ीय् र्ऽीर्र्क्तीीन् न् र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्र र्उीर्न्ी र्प्रीर्य्ीञर् ी ॉर्ञी९ प्र अ्‌क्ष्अ प्र द्व्‌ न् प्र ;्रद्ध ऽञई्रय्ई र्प्रीय् ैईींई २न्ध्ञ न् प्र९ र्ीध् र्क्तीर्५ीर् ींीन् भप्रर्न्ॉीर् ीर् ीन्र्ह्यी ष्र्ईीर्ऽीर् ीप्रन्ॉ प्रर्॰ीञ अर् िन्न्ध्ए ूर्ूिर्र् िीर् ँीन्ध् र्प्री र््रीर् ीय

र्ऽीभन् ई—ए र्प्रीर्य्ीञर् ी ॉर्ञी९ प्र अ्‌क्ष्अ प्र द्व्‌ न्.प्र ;क्ष्द्ध र्ऽींॉीन्ए प्रर्॰ीञ अर् िन्न्ध्ए ूर्ूिर् ि न्ींघई र्ीन्र्ह्यी ष्र्ईीर्ऽीर् ीप्रन्ॉ ँप्रन्र् ीध् र्क्तीर्५ीर् ींीन् भप्रर्न्ॉीर् ी प्र॰य्र्५ी प्रर्॰ी र््रीर् ी प्र "न्ॉर् ीप्रन्ॉ र् ी०ई २र्न्ी ूर् िप्रर्॰ीञ ऽञ॰न् ९ ैईींई न्र् ी र् ीन्र्र्ह्यीीञर् ी ैब्न् न्ई २ींन् प्र९प्रई ड ञ र्ऽी ऽर्ध्ी॰ ैईींई श्ञन् र्ऽीभन्र् ॉी २न्ध्ए र्प्रीय् र् ी र्ऽी र्९ी र्॰ीप्र९ श्ञन्य

र्ऽीभन् ई—ए न्घईर् ीप्रन्ॉ र् ीध् र्क्तीर्५ीर् ींीन् भप्रर्न्ॉी र्उीर्न्ी प्रर्॰ीञ ूर् िन्न्ध्ए ूर्ूिर्र् िीर् ी०ई र्प्रीर् ीण्र् ीईध् न्ॉध्॰ प्रँर्९ी र्प्रीय् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध्ए र्न्ीींन् र्उीर्न्ी ऽ प्रर्॰ीञ ूद्य न्न्ध्ए ूर्ूिर् िर् ी ॉञण् द्यगक्ष्लध्र्प्रीय्ण्ध्प्रण्ण्ध्ूर्ूिर् ि ँप्रन् र्र्ऽीी्रर् ी ैईींई न् ॰ध् ्र"य्न् २भन्य र्ऽीभन् ई—ए प्रँर्९ी र्प्रीय् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध्ए र्न्ीींन् र्उीर्न्ी ऽ प्रर्॰ीञ र््‌िर् ीय्ए ूर्ूिू र् ी ॉञण् द्वलद्यध्ैईध्र् ीञ अद्वलध्र्प्रीय्ण्ध्प्रण्ण्ध् ूर्ूिू ँप्रन् ैईींई ध् ्र"य्न् ऽींट्टन् प्रर्न्ीय्न् ञ २न् ष्र्र्ईीी र््री २भन् प्रर् ीध् र्क्तीर्५ीर् ींीन् भप्रर्न्ॉी र्ऽीँ ध् र्ईीन्ध् ई र्ईीर् ी"य्न् झ्ध् ऽर्ध्ी॰ र्ऽीभन् २न्ध् ऽ र्प्रीय् र् ी र्९ी र्॰ीप्र९ र्प्री २भन्ण् "न्ॉ ऽप्रईप्रन्घई न्ह्म२र्न्ीञ र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्रर् ी ॉट्टर् ीप्रन्ॉ प्र९ न्र्न्ीञई झ्ध् न्घई प्र९र्ईी प्र९ र्ईीर् ी"य्न्र् ीन्र्ह्यी ष्र्र्ईीी २भन् र्ऽीभन् २न्ध्र् ी"य्न् ैब्न्ध्न्र्ह्यी प्रर्॰ी २भन्य

र्ऽीभन् ई—ए र्र्ऽीी्रर् ी २न्र् ॉीर्र्क्तीी २र्न्ी र््री २भन् प्रर् ीध् र्क्तीर्५ीर् ींीन् भप्रर्न्ॉी र्प्रीय्र्र् ीर् ी र्९ी प्रप्रर्क्ती र्उीर्न्ी ऽर्प्रीई न्ध्प्रई ॉ र्॰ीप्र९ न् ञ प्र९ न्२न् २भञन् र्ऽीभन् न्र् ीॉ "न्ॉ प्र९र्ईी प्र९र् ी"य्न् झ्ध् न्प्रईर् ीन्र्ह्यी र्ऽी र्ऽीभप्रह्न २न्ध्ञ २भन्ए

र्ऽीभन् ई—ए र्९ी प्रईप्रप्रर्क्तीह्न ऽप्रर्क्तीप्रए अ्‌र्ूि ध् र्र्क्तीीर्न्ी अर् िञ ऽींष्ञप्रर्क्तीई र्प्री र््री २भन् प्र —

"प्र॰ र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्रर् ीर् ॉीर्र्क्तीी २र्न्ीर् ँीर्ईी २भन् प्रर् ी"य्न् प्रघई

;द्ध र्प्रीय्र् ीञर् ी र्९ी न्ॉ ॉ झ्ध्ईन् र्ऽीभन् न्ॉ न्ध्प्रई ञ ँभॉध् "न्ॉ ऽप्रर्क्तीप्र र्उीर्न्ीर् ी ऽर्क्तीध् न्र्प्रीई २भन्ए र्॰ीप्र९ न् ञ ऽॉ९ न्२र्न्ी २भन्य र्ईी

;द्ध न्ॉ ऽॉ९र्ईी प्र९र् ी"य्न् ऽट्ठ{र्न्ीर् ीन्र्ह्यीर् ी र्र्ह्मीीप्रह्न २न्ध्ञ न्र्ईी २भन्ए

र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्र र्र्५ीीॉध् र्र्न्ीँी ञर् ीप्रर्५ीई र्ऽी॰र्५ी र्उीर्न्ी र्न्ॉी प्रन्प्र२य्न्ई र्र्र्ीिंीप्रऽई न्र््री र्ऽीभन्र् ॉी प्रघई न्ॉ र्ऽी॰र्५ी ध् र्ईीन्ध् ॉ ईध्र् ॉी९ ध्र् ीर्९ीप्रर्क्ती प्र९ प्रन्प्र२य्न्ई २र्न्ीर््रीयर्झ्ी्र अ , {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू 1227 ऽई—ए ऽष् र्९ी प्रईप्रप्रर्क्तीह्न ऽप्रर्क्तीप्रए अ्‌अद्य ध् र्र्क्तीीर्न्ी अर् ि ऽींॉन्र्ह्यी ञ र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्र ई॰र्उीर्न्ी र्र्र्ीिंीऽर्र्ह्यीी न्र्ईी २भन् प्र {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्न्ीद्द लद्य.र्क्तीन्ॉर्ध्ीञ प्रर्र्क्तीी ॉर्झ्ी र्प्रीय्र्र् ीी ॉ {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्न्ीद्द ञ प्रर्र्क्तीी ॉर्झ्ी र् ॉीर्र्क्तीीन्र्ह्यी र्प्रीय्ए ूर्अिद्व ञ र्प्रीय् ९त्र्र् ी९ ऽञष्त्र्न्र्न्ी"य्न्न्र् ीन्ध्य् र्ऽी "न्प्रह्यत्र्र्न्ी ऽध्ध्य्र् ीध् र्क्तीर्५ीर् ींीन् भप्रर्न्ॉीए र्र््री़ीण् प्रॉ९र्ईीर्न्ीए {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३र् ी "न्ॉ र्ऽी॰र्५ी ध् र्ईीन्ध् ॉ ईध्र् ॉी९ ध् ऽप्रर्क्ती प्र९ ॉञॉ॰ प्रॉध् झ्ध् ॉ॰ र्ऽी र्न्ीद्द र्ऽी ॉञर्र्ीिं र्न्ीद्दर्र्.ीी ध् प्रर्र्क्तीी ॉर्झ्ी र्ऽी प्रर्र्क्तीी प्रन्ऽ॰र् ी ॉ॰ै ींर् ँी र्ऽी २र्न्ी प्र९ प्रन्प्र२य्न्ई २भन्ण्

र्ऽी॰र्५ी ॉए

२न्ैर्ईीण्ध्. ;श्न्ह्म]र् ीण् ष्ींर्न्ीप्रर्९ीद्ध प्रन्क्न् र्र्क्तीी ॉप्रए र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्रण् ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001

New Delhi, dated 17th May, 2022—27 Vaisakha, 1944 (Saka)

No. CG-LA/ES-I/47/2018.—WHEREAS, the General Election to Legislative Assembly of Chhattisgarh, 2018 was announced by Election Commission of India vide Press Note No. ECI/PN/66/2018 dated 6th October, 2018. As per the schedule, Date of Counting was 11th December, 2018.

AND WHEREAS, as per Section 78 of the Representation of the People Act, 1902, every contesting candidate has to lodge a true copy of his account of election expenses within 30 days with the District Election Officer, from the date of election of returned candidate;

AND WHEREAS, the result of the said election was declared by the concerned Returning Officer including 47-Dharsiwa Constituency on 11th December, 2018. As such the last date for lodging of account of election expenses was 10th January, 2019.

AND WHEREAS, as per the report dated 11th January, 2019 submitted by the District Election Officer, Raipur District, Chhattisgarh and forwarded by Chief Electoral Officer, Chhattisgarh vide letter No. 21/र्ीन्ध्प्रण्ॉण्ींण्ध् "य्न्ण्"य्न्ण्ण्/2019/85, dated 29th January, 2019, Sh. Dhanesh Kumar Mairisha, a contesting candidate of Ambedkarite Party of India from 47-Dharsiwa Assembly Constituency of Chhattisgarh, has failed to lodge any account of his election expenses in the manner as required by law.

AND WHEREAS, on the basis of the reports of the District Election Officer, Raipur District, Chhattisgarh and the Chief Electoral Officer, Chhattisgarh, a show Cause Notice, dated 10th February, 2020 was issued by Election Commission of India under Sub Rule (5) of Rule 89 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 to Sh. Dhanesh Kumar Mairisha for non-submission of Election expenses;

AND WHEREAS, as per Sub Rule (6) of Rule 89 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, through the above said Show Cause Notice, dated 10th February, 2020, Sh. Dhanesh Kumar Mairisha, was directed to submit his representation in writing in the Commission explaining the reason for non-submission of accounts and also to lodge his accounts of election expenses/rectify the defects in his accounts and submit the same the District Election Officer concerned within 20 days from the date of receipt of the notice;

AND WHEREAS, the said notice was received by Sh. Dhanesh Kumar Mairisha, on 20th February, 2020 Acknowledgment receipt obtained from the candidate have been submitted to the Commission by District Election Officer, Raipur vide his letter No. 7364/र्प्रीय्ण्ध्प्रण्ण्/2020 dated 27th February, 2020.

AND WHEREAS, in the supplementary report submitted by District Election Officer, Raipur vide his letter No. 847/ैईध्र् ीञ अद्वलध्र्प्रीय्ण्ध्प्रण्ण्/2022 dated 09th March, 2022, has stated that Sh. Dhanesh Kumar Mairisha, has not submitted any representation or his account of election expenses till date. Further, he has furnished neither any reason nor explanation for the said failure even after receipt of the due notice to the Election Commission of India as well;

AND WHEREAS, the Commission satisfied that Sh. Dhanesh Kumar Mairisha, has failed to lodge an account of election expenses and has no good reason or justification for the failure;

AND WHEREAS, Section 10A of the Representation of the people Act, 1951 Stipulates that :—

"If the Election Commission is satisfied that a person:

(a) Has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by law or under this Act, and

(b) Has no good reason or justification for the failure,

Election Commission shall by order published in the Official Gazette, declare him to be disquali- fied and any such person shall be disqualified for a period of three years from date of the under;

NOW THEREFORE, in pursuance of Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1917, the Election Commission of India hereby declares Sh. Dhanesh Kumar Mairisha, Vill-Kankidipa, P.O.-Bengachi, Tehsil- Sarangarh, Dist.-Raipur Chhattisgarh and a contesting candidate of Ambedkaraite Party of India for General Election to Legislative Assembly of Chhattisgarh, 2018 from 47-Dharsiwa Assembly Constituency of the state of Chhattisgarh to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Parliamentary or Legislative Council of a State or Union Territory for a period of three years from the date of this order.

By order,

Sd/- (NARENDRA N. BUTOLIA) Senior Principal Secretary, Election Commission of India.

"य् प्र॰}९ध्ए प्रर्॰ीञ अद्य "य्न्ए ूर्ूिूूद्य भर्र्५ीीए अ्‌लल ;र्५ीद्ध

ॉण् {न्ण््रण्ध्प्रण्ॉण्ध्ट्टय् ऽींण्.अध्लद्यध्ूर्अिद्वण्ई— र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्र र्उीर्न्ी {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्न्ीद्द ॉ प्रर्र्क्तीी ॉर्झ्ीर् ीर् ॉीर्र्क्तीीन्र्ह्यी र्प्रीय् ूर्अिद्व ध् र्र्र्ीिंीऽर्र्ह्यीी ॉर् ीन् ॉञर्ऊी "य्न्ॉध्र्ऽी"य्न्ध्र्ण्ीण्ध्क्ष्क्ष्ध्ूर्अिद्व प्रर्॰ीञ क्ष् ऽघट्टन्ष्न्ए ूर्अिद्व ँप्रन् ध् ्र"य् ध्ण्र् ीय् र्ऽींॉीन्ए ई्रर्र्ह्यीी ध् र्ईीन्ध् अअ प्र॰ॉट्टष्न्ए ूर्अिद्व ध्ण्

र्ऽीभन् ई—ए र्९ी प्रईप्रप्रर्क्तीह्न ऽप्रर्क्तीप्रए अ्‌अद्य ध् र्र्क्तीीर्न्ी द्यद्व र्ऽींॉीन्ए र्प्रीय् ९त्र्र् ी९ ह्न ऽध्ध्य्र् ीए र्प्रीय्प्रई ऽध्ध्य् र्प्रीय् ध् र्ईीन्ध् ॉ गर् िप्रर्॰ीञ झ्ध्ईन् र्प्रीय् ऽ ९ ध् ॉ२न्ध् प्रई प्रँर्९ी र्प्रीय् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध्र् ी र्॰ीप्र९ न्ध् २र्न्ीईध् २भन् र्ऽीभन् ई—ए लद्य.र्क्तीन्ॉर्ध्ीञ प्रर्र्क्तीी ॉर्झ्ी र्प्रीय्र्र् ीी ॉप्र२न्ई ॉञष्ञप्रर्क्तीई प्रन्न्र्प्र्र ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध् र्उीर्न्ी न्घई र्प्रीय् प्रन्र्र्ह्यीी अअ प्र॰ॉट्टष्न्ए ूर्अिद्वर् ी र्र्र्ीिंीप्रऽई प्र ्र ण् "न्ॉर् ीन्ए र्प्रीय् ९ र्॰ीप्र९ न् ध् ऽप्रह्मई र्ईीन्ध् अर् िँन्ध्ए ूर्अि्‌ ध्य

र्ऽीभन् ई—ए प्रँर्९ी र्प्रीय् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध्ए र्न्ीींन् {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्उीर्न्ी ैईींई र्ऽीभन् ींऊ र्प्रीय् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध्ए {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्उीर्न्ी ऽ प्रर्॰ीञ ू्‌ ँन्ध्ए ूर्अि्‌ र्ी ॉञण् ूअर्ध्ीन्ध्प्रण्ॉण्ींण्ध्"य्न्ण्"य्न्ण्ण्ध्ूर्अि्‌ध्द्व्र ँप्रन् ऽ्रप्रऽई प्रर्॰ीञ अअ ँन्ध्ए ूर्अि्‌ ध् प्रर्न्ीय्न् र्ऽींॉीन् र्ीध् ींन् र्९ी९ ष्र्र्ीिं९र् ँी {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् लद्य.र्क्तीन्ॉर्ध्ीञ प्रर्र्क्तीी ॉर्झ्ी र्प्रीय्र्र् ीी ॉ र्प्रीय् ९त्र्र् ी९ प्र॰य्९ध् ऽध्ध्य् २भञन्ए प्रप्रर्क्ती र्उीर्न्ीर् ीर्प्रीई न्ध्प्रई ॉ ऽ र्प्रीय् र् ीर् ी"य्न् झ्ध् र्९ी र्॰ीप्र९ न् ञ प्र९ न्२न् २भञन्ण्र्झ्ी्र अ , {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू 1229 र्ऽीभन् ई—ए प्रँर्९ी र्प्रीय् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध्ए र्न्ीींन् {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्ऽीभन् ींऊ र्प्रीय् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध्ए {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् ध् प्रर्न्ीय् र्ऽीर्र्क्तीीन् न् र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्र र्उीर्न्ी र्प्रीर्य्ीञर् ी ॉर्ञी९ प्र अ्‌क्ष्अ प्र द्व्‌ न् प्र ;्रद्ध ऽञई्रय्ई र्प्रीय् ैईींई २न्ध्ञ न् प्र९ र्ीध् ींन् र्९ी९ ष्र्र्ीिं९र् ीर् ीन्र्ह्यी ष्र्ईीर्ऽीर् ीप्रन्ॉ प्रर्॰ीञ अर् िन्न्ध्ए ूर्ूिर्र् िीर् ँीन्ध् र्प्री र््रीर् ीय

र्ऽीभन् ई—ए र्प्रीर्य्ीञर् ी ॉर्ञी९ प्र अ्‌क्ष्अ प्र द्व्‌ न्.प्र ;क्ष्द्ध र्ऽींॉीन्ए प्रर्॰ीञ अर् िन्न्ध्ए ूर्ूिर् ि न्ींघई र्ीन्र्ह्यी ष्र्ईीर्ऽीर् ीप्रन्ॉ ँप्रन्र् ीध् ींन् र्९ी९ ष्र्र्ीिं९र् ी प्र॰य्र्५ी प्रर्॰ी र््रीर् ी प्र "न्ॉर् ीप्रन्ॉ र् ी०ई २र्न्ी ूर् िप्रर्॰ीञ ऽञ॰न् ९ ैईींई न्र् ी र् ीन्र्र्ह्यीीञर् ी ैब्न् न्ई २ींन् प्र९प्रई ड ञ र्ऽी ऽर्ध्ी॰ ैईींई श्ञन् र्ऽीभन्र् ॉी २न्ध्ए र्प्रीय् र् ी र्ऽी र्९ी र्॰ीप्र९ श्ञन्य र्ऽीभन् ई—ए न्घईर् ीप्रन्ॉ र् ीध् ींन् र्९ी९ ष्र्र्ीिं९ र्उीर्न्ी प्रर्॰ीञ ूर् िन्न्ध्ए ूर्ूिर्र् िीर् ी०ई र्प्रीर् ीण्र् ीईध् न्ॉध्॰ प्रँर्९ी र्प्रीय् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध्ए र्न्ीींन् र्उीर्न्ी ऽ प्रर्॰ीञ ूद्य न्न्ध्ए ूर्ूिर् िर् ी ॉञण् द्यगक्ष्लध्र्प्रीय्ण्ध्प्रण्ण्ध्ूर्ूिर् ि ँप्रन् र्र्ऽीी्रर् ी ैईींई न् ॰ध् ्र"य्न् २भन्य र्ऽीभन् ई—ए प्रँर्९ी र्प्रीय् ऽप्रर्र्क्तीीन्ध्ए र्न्ीींन् र्उीर्न्ी ऽ प्रर्॰ीञ र््‌िर् ीय्ए ूर्ूिू र् ी ॉञण् द्वलद्यध्ैईध्र् ीञ अद्वलध्र्प्रीय्ण्ध्प्रण्ण्ध् ूर्ूिू ँप्रन् ैईींई ध् ्र"य्न् ऽींट्टन् प्रर्न्ीय्न् ञ २न् ष्र्र्ईीी र््री २भन् प्रर् ीध् ींन् र्९ी९ ष्र्र्ीिं९ र्ऽीँ ध् र्ईीन्ध् ई र्ईीर् ी"य्न् झ्ध् ऽर्ध्ी॰ र्ऽीभन् २न्ध् ऽ र्प्रीय् र् ी र्९ी र्॰ीप्र९ र्प्री २भन्ण् "न्ॉ ऽप्रईप्रन्घई न्ह्म२र्न्ीञ र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्रर् ी ॉट्टर् ीप्रन्ॉ प्र९ न्र्न्ीञई झ्ध् न्घई प्र९र्ईी प्र९ र्ईीर् ी"य्न्र् ीन्र्ह्यी ष्र्र्ईीी २भन् र्ऽीभन् २न्ध्र् ी"य्न् ैब्न्ध्न्र्ह्यी प्रर्॰ी २भन्य

र्ऽीभन् ई—ए र्र्ऽीी्रर् ी २न्र् ॉीर्र्क्तीी २र्न्ी र््री २भन् प्रर् ीध् ींन् र्९ी९ ष्र्र्ीिं९ र्प्रीय्र्र् ीर् ी र्९ी प्रप्रर्क्ती र्उीर्न्ी ऽर्प्रीई न्ध्प्रई ॉ र्॰ीप्र९ न् ञ प्र९ न्२न् २भञन् र्ऽीभन् न्र् ीॉ "न्ॉ प्र९र्ईी प्र९र् ी"य्न् झ्ध् न्प्रईर् ीन्र्ह्यी र्ऽी र्ऽीभप्रह्न २न्ध्ञ २भन्ए

र्ऽीभन् ई—ए र्९ी प्रईप्रप्रर्क्तीह्न ऽप्रर्क्तीप्रए अ्‌र्ूि ध् र्र्क्तीीर्न्ी अर् िञ ऽींष्ञप्रर्क्तीई र्प्री र््री २भन् प्र —

"प्र॰ र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्रर् ीर् ॉीर्र्क्तीी २र्न्ीर् ँीर्ईी २भन् प्रर् ी"य्न् प्रघई

;द्ध र्प्रीय्र् ीञर् ी र्९ी न्ॉ ॉ झ्ध्ईन् र्ऽीभन् न्ॉ न्ध्प्रई ञ ँभॉध् "न्ॉ ऽप्रर्क्तीप्र र्उीर्न्ीर् ी ऽर्क्तीध् न्र्प्रीई २भन्ए र्॰ीप्र९ न् ञ ऽॉ९ न्२र्न्ी २भन्य र्ईी

;द्ध न्ॉ ऽॉ९र्ईी प्र९र् ी"य्न् ऽट्ठ{र्न्ीर् ीन्र्ह्यीर् ी र्र्ह्मीीप्रह्न २न्ध्ञ न्र्ईी २भन्ए

र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्र र्र्५ीीॉध् र्र्न्ीँी ञर् ीप्रर्५ीई र्ऽी॰र्५ी र्उीर्न्ी र्न्ॉी प्रन्प्र२य्न्ई र्र्र्ीिंीप्रऽई न्र््री र्ऽीभन्र् ॉी प्रघई न्ॉ र्ऽी॰र्५ी ध् र्ईीन्ध् ॉ ईध्र् ॉी९ ध्र् ीर्९ीप्रर्क्ती प्र९ प्रन्प्र२य्न्ई २र्न्ीर््रीय

ऽई—ए ऽष् र्९ी प्रईप्रप्रर्क्तीह्न ऽप्रर्क्तीप्रए अ्‌अद्य ध् र्र्क्तीीर्न्ी अर् ि ऽींॉन्र्ह्यी ञ र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्र ई॰र्उीर्न्ी र्र्र्ीिंीऽर्र्ह्यीी न्र्ईी २भन् प्र {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्न्ीद्द लद्य.र्क्तीन्ॉर्ध्ीञ प्रर्र्क्तीी ॉर्झ्ी र्प्रीय्र्र् ीी ॉ {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्न्ीद्द ञ प्रर्र्क्तीी ॉर्झ्ी र् ॉीर्र्क्तीीन्र्ह्यी र्प्रीय्ए ूर्अिद्व ञ र्प्रीय् ९त्र्र् ी९ प्र॰य्९ध् ऽध्ध्य्र् ीध् ींन् र्९ी९ ष्र्र्ीिं९ए र््री.भन्र्ईीएर् ीण्र्.ी२न्र्न्ीए प्र.ल्‌गअअक्ष्ए {र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न्र् ी "न्ॉ र्ऽी॰र्५ी ध् र्ईीन्ध् ॉ ईध्र् ॉी९ ध् ऽप्रर्क्ती प्र९ ॉञॉ॰ प्रॉध् झ्ध् ॉ॰ र्ऽी र्न्ीद्द र्ऽी ॉञर्र्ीिं र्न्ीद्दर्र्.ीी ध् प्रर्र्क्तीी ॉर्झ्ी र्ऽी प्रर्र्क्तीी प्रन्ऽ॰र् ी ॉ॰ै ींर् ँी र्ऽी २र्न्ी प्र९ प्रन्प्र२य्न्ई २भन्ण्

र्ऽी॰र्५ी ॉए

२न्ैर्ईीण्ध्. ;श्न्ह्म]र् ीण् ष्ींर्न्ीप्रर्९ीद्ध प्रन्क्न् र्र्क्तीी ॉप्रए र्झ्ीन्ई र्प्रीय् र्र्ऽीी्रण्{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू ख् र्झ्ी्र अ 1230 ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001

New Delhi, dated 17th May, 2022—27 Vaisakha, 1944 (Saka)

No. CG-LA/ES-I/47/2018.—WHEREAS, the General Election to Legislative Assembly of Chhattisgarh, 2018 was announced by Election Commission of India vide Press Note No. ECI/PN/66/2018 dated 6th October, 2018. As per the schedule, Date of Counting was 11th December, 2018.

AND WHEREAS, as per Section 78 of the Representation of the People Act, 1917, every contesting candidate has to lodge a true copy of his account of election expenses within 30 days with the District Election Officer, from the date of election of returned candidate;

AND WHEREAS, the result of the said election was declared by the concerned Returning Officer including 47-Dharsiwa Constituency on 11th December, 2018. As such the last date for lodging of account of election expenses was 10th January, 2019.

AND WHEREAS, as per the report dated 11th January, 2019 submitted by the District Election Officer, Raipur District, Chhattisgarh and forwarded by Chief Electoral Officer, Chhattisgarh vide letter No. 21/र्ीन्ध्प्रण्ॉण्ींण्ध् "य्न्ण्"य्न्ण्ण्/2019/85, dated 29th January, 2019, Sh. Puran Lal Baghel, an Independent contesting candidate from 47-Dharsiwa Assembly Constituency of Chhattisgarh, has failed to lodge any account of his election expenses in the manner as required by law.

AND WHEREAS, on the basis of the reports of the District Election Officer, Raipur District, Chhattisgarh and the Chief Electoral Officer, Chhattisgarh, a show Cause Notice, dated 10th February, 2020 was issued by Election Commission of India under Sub Rule (5) of Rule 89 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 to Sh. Puran Lal Baghel for non-submission of Election expenses;

AND WHEREAS, as per Sub Rule (6) of Rule 89 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, through the above said Show Cause Notice, dated 10th February, 2020, Sh. Puran Lal Baghel, was directed to submit his representation in writing in the Commission explaining the reason for non-submission of accounts and also to lodge his accounts of election expenses/rectify the defects in his accounts and submit the same the District Election Officer concerned within 20 days from the date of receipt of the notice;

AND WHEREAS, the said notice was received by Sh. Puran Lal Baghel, on 20th February, 2020 Acknowl- edgment receipt obtained from the candidate have been submitted to the Commission by District Election Officer, Raipur vide his letter No. 7364/र्प्रीय्ण्ध्प्रण्ण्/2020 dated 27th February, 2020.

AND WHEREAS, in the supplementary report submitted by District Election Officer, Raipur vide his letter No. 847/ैईध् र्ीञ अद्वलध्र्प्रीय्ण्ध्प्रण्ण्/2022 dated 09th March, 2022, has stated that Sh. Puran Lal Baghel, has not submitted any representation or his account of election expenses till date. Further, he has furnished neither any reason nor explanation for the said failure even after receipt of the due notice to the Election Commission of India as well;

AND WHEREAS, the Commission satisfied that Sh. Puran Lal Baghel, has failed to lodge an account of election expenses and has no good reason or justification for the failure;

AND WHEREAS, Section 10A of the Representation of the people Act, 1951 Stipulates that :—

"If the Election Commission is satisfied that a person:

(a) Has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by law or under this Act, and

(b) Has no good reason or justification for the failure,

Election Commission shall by order published in the Official Gazette, declare him to be disquali- fied and any such person shall be disqualified for a period of three years from date of the under;

NOW THEREFORE, in pursuance of Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1917, the Election Commission of India hereby declares Sh. Puran Lal Baghel, Gram-Raita, P.O.-Manohara, Pin-493116, Chhattisgarh and an Independent contesting candidate for General Election to Legislative Assembly of Chhattisgarh, 2018 from 47-Dharsiwa Assembly Constituency of the state of Chhattisgarh to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Parliamentary or Legislative Council of a State or Union Territory for a period of three years from the date of this order.

By order,

Sd/- (NARENDRA N. BUTOLIA) Senior Principal Secretary, Election Commission of India.

न्र्ड्डी र्र्ह्मीी९ र्ऽी॰र्५ी र्ऽीभन् ऽप्रॉर्ट्टी

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Bilaspur, the 6th May 2022

No. 875/Confdl./2022/II-2-90/2001 (Part-IV).—(A) Shri Sudhir Kumar, Member of Higher Judicial Service and presently posted as Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur is hereby, assigned additional charge of the post of Registrar (I. & E.), in addition to his own duties, until further orders.

(B) Shri Balram Prasad Verma, Member of Higher Judicial Service and presently posted as Registrar (Selection and Appointment) is hereby, assigned additional charge of the Mediation matters, in addition to his own duties, until further orders.

(C) Shri Shakti Singh Rajput, Member of Higher Judicial Service and presently posted as Officer-on-Special Duty-cum-Central Project Co-ordinator, E-Courts Mission Mode Project is hereby, appointed as Registrar (Computerisation)-cum-Central Project Co-ordinator, E-Courts Mission Mode Project in the Establishment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh from the date he assumes charge of his office.

Bilaspur, the 13th May 2022

No. 886/Confdl./2022/II-3-1/2022.—The following candidates as mentioned in Column No. (2), appointed on probation as Civil Judge (Entry Level) in the Cadre of Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service by the State Govern- ment, are posted in the capacity as mentioned against their names in Column No. (3) of the table below with a direction to join their place of posting on or before 30-05-2022 :—

TABLE

Sl. No. Name

(1)

(2)

Posted As (3)

1. Smt. Kewara Rajput W/o Shri Nitin Thakur I Civil Judge Class-II, Durg 2. Ku. Shubhangi Jain D/o Shri Swatantra Kumar Jain IV Civil Judge Class-II, Durg 3. Shri Nilesh Kumar Baghel S/o Shri Angaj Prajapati VII Civil Judge Class-II, Durg{र्न्ीध्ॉ्र३न् र्र्न्ीँीए प्रर्॰ी ू्‌ ँींर्९ी"य्न् ूर्ूिू ख् र्झ्ी्र अ 1232

Bilaspur, the 13th May 2022

No. 895/Confdl./2022/II-2-1/2022.—The incumbent Judicial Officer of the Court, as specified in Column No. (2) of the table below, are, hereby, given additional charge of the Court as mentioned in Column No. (3), in addition to their own duties until further orders :—

TABLE

S. No. Name of the Court Additional Charge

(1)

(2)

(3)

1. Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jashpur Additional District & Sessions Judge

(F.T.C.), Jashpur.

2. V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Raigarh Labour Judge, Labour Court, Raigarh 3. II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Janjgir Labour Judge, Labour Court, Janjgir 4. I Additional district & Sessions Judge, Manendra- Labour Judge, Labour Court, Manendra- garh.

garh.

By order of the High Court, ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, Registrar General.