Katju, J. - (1.) THE appellant Ram Murti has preferred this appeal against the order of the District Judge, Pilibhit, sitting as an Election Tribunal, declaring that the election of the appellant as the Adhyaksh of Zila Parishad, Pilibhit was void and that the office of the said Adhyaksh was still vacant.
(2.) THE election for the office of Adhyaksh, Zila Parishad Pilibhit took place in November 1963. 25-11- 1963 was the last date for filing nominations when the nomination papers of the appellant Ram Murti, the first respondent Subedar and the second respondent Ganga Prakash were filed. At the scrutiny of the nomination papers the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of Subedar under Section 13(c) of the U. P. Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam (U. P. Act 33 of 1961), hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that he being a Sarpanch was disqualified for being elected as the Adhyaksh of the Zila Parishad. The nomination paper of the second respondent was also rejected under Section 19(2) of the Act because he had not attained the age of 30 years. Thus the appellant Ram Murti was the only candidate left in the field and he was declared elected as the Adhyaksh under Rule 13 of the U. P. Zila Parishads (Election of Adhyaksha and Up-Adhyaksha and settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the rules, on 26-11-1963. Thereafter the election of Ram Murti was challenged in an election petition by Subedar and Ganga Prakash. It was contended on their behalf that the nomination papers had been wrongly rejected and they prayed that the election of Ram Murti should be set aside. It was contended on behalf of the appellant Ram Murti that the nomination papers of Subedar and Ganga Prakash had been properly rejected as they were persons who were disqualified from being elected as Adhyaksh of the Zila Parishad and, secondly, that even if the nomination papers of the respondents had been improperly rejected the result of the election was not materially affected and, therefore, the respondents were not entitled to the relief, sought by them.
(3.) THE Election Tribunal held, inter alia: (i) That the State Government has no direct control over the office of Sarpanch, particularly in the appointment and removal of a Sarpanch, and has only an indirect control, over it. Even assuming that the government has a direct control over the office of the Sarpanch that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the disqualification mentioned in Section 13(c) is established. Even if an office carries with it certain allowances or honorarium or other advantages, other than a regular salary, then that office cannot be said to be an office of profit. A Sarpanch does not get any regular salary or allowance or even an honorarium but holds an elected office and, consequently, the office of Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat could not be said to be an office of profit. Therefore, the rejection of the nomination paper of respondent Subedar was not justified in law. (ii) That the nomination paper of respondent No. 2 had been properly rejected. The Tribunal further held that since the nomination paper of Subedar had been illegally rejected and he could not contest the election for which he was fully qualified and his exclusion resulted in the uncontested election of the appellant to the office of the Adhyaksh of the Zila Parishad, the election of the appellant was void and had to be set aside. ;