Office of profit disqualification requires a post directly under Government, not mere control through a company.

For disqualification under Article 191(1)(a), the office must be directly under the Government; indirect governmental control over a separate company is not enough. The SC noted that employees of the Mysore Iron & Steel Works became company employees after transfer to a private limited company, with no proof of a retained Government lien, lent service, or continuing Government post, and a Civil List entry was insufficient to show Government service. Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was treated as reinforcing that only specified offices in certain companies are covered. The election challenge therefore failed on the disqualification ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's appeal against the election of the successful candidate could succeed on the ground that the returned candidate was disqualified under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution for holding an office of profit under the Government of Mysore at the date of scrutiny.

Analysis: The respondent had been employed in the Mysore Iron & Steel Works when it was a Government concern, but on the undertaking being transferred to a private limited company the employees, including the respondent, became employees of the company and ceased to be Government servants. The transfer did not require a fresh contract to create employment under the company, since the legal effect of the transfer and the applicable labour law provisions brought about the change in employer. The respondent was not shown to be a lent officer, did not retain a lien on a Government post, and the Civil List entry did not prove continuing Government service. The Court further held that indirect Government control over the company, through shareholding, appointment of directors, or general directions, was insufficient to make every employee of the company a holder of office under the Government. For disqualification under Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a), the office must be under the Government itself, not merely under a company or authority controlled by it. Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 also showed that Parliament dealt separately with only specified offices in certain companies, reinforcing that ordinary employees of such companies were not covered.

Conclusion: The respondent was not holding an office of profit under the Government and was not disqualified from being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly.

Final Conclusion: The election challenge failed on the sole surviving ground, and the returned candidate's election was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For disqualification under Article 191(1)(a), the office must be directly under the Government; indirect governmental control over a separate company does not, by itself, make the employee hold an office of profit under the Government.

---