Government company employees and office of profit: real governmental control, not ownership alone, determines disqualification under the Constitution.

Employees of a Government-owned company were held not to fall within section 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, because that disqualification is confined to a managing agent, manager or secretary, and ordinary posts such as khalashi or meter reader do not satisfy those categories. They were also held not to hold an office of profit under article 191(1)(a) merely because the company was wholly owned by the Central Government; the decisive test is real governmental control over appointment, removal, remuneration and supervision, which in this case remained with the company. The ratio emphasises that a Government-controlled company does not automatically create an office of profit under the Government.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether employees of a Government-owned company could be treated as managing agents, managers or secretaries so as to attract disqualification under section 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; (ii) Whether such employees could be treated as holding an office of profit under article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether employees of a Government-owned company could be treated as managing agents, managers or secretaries so as to attract disqualification under section 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: The statutory disqualification under section 10 is confined to a managing agent, manager or secretary of a company or corporation in which the Government holds the prescribed shareholding. A managing agent is one entrusted with the management of the whole or substantially the whole of the affairs of a company. Mere employment in non-executive posts such as khalashi or meter reader does not answer that description. The abolition of managing agencies also reinforced that the respondents could not be brought within the statutory category.

Conclusion: The respondents were not disqualified under section 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue (ii): Whether such employees could be treated as holding an office of profit under article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The governing test is the degree of control exercised by the Government over appointment, removal, remuneration and supervision of duties, together with the practical character of the body in which the office is held. Although the company was wholly owned by the Central Government and its directors were appointed by the President, the relevant employees were appointed, controlled and remunerated by the company, not by the Government. The functions of the company were commercial and not essential governmental functions. On a practical view, the posts were under the company and not under the Government.

Conclusion: The respondents were not holding an office of profit under the Central Government within article 191(1)(a).

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the nomination papers was unsustainable, the setting aside of the election was justified, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For article 191(1)(a), an office in a Government-controlled company is not automatically an office of profit under the Government; the decisive factor is the real and effective governmental control over the office. Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 applies only to the specific statutory categories of managing agent, manager or secretary and cannot be extended to ordinary employees of the company.

---