Office of profit disqualification turns on a real employer-employee relationship, not mere provisional regularisation.

Voluntary service without remuneration and without an established statutory service status did not amount to holding an office of profit under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution and Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The statutory scheme on provincialisation did not automatically make the teachers Government servants, and a valid regularisation or appointment still had to come into existence. The purported regularisation was only provisional, and in any event the appellant was no longer in service when it was said to take effect. As no subsisting employer-employee relationship with the State existed, the appellant was not disqualified and the election could not be invalidated on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant held an office of profit on the date of nomination so as to incur disqualification under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: The appellant had rendered voluntary service in the school without remuneration and without any established statutory service status. The statutory scheme concerning provincialisation showed that the teachers concerned did not automatically become Government servants merely because the school was provincialised; a valid regularisation or appointment had still to come into existence. The purported regularisation order was found to be only provisional and, in any event, the appellant was no longer in service when it was said to have taken effect, having accepted the school's release from service. The Court further held that regularisation does not itself create permanence or cure the absence of a subsisting jural relationship, and that a contract of service requires offer and acceptance. On these facts, no employer-employee relationship between the State and the appellant had come into being so as to make him a holder of an office of profit.

Conclusion: The appellant was not disqualified as a holder of an office of profit, and the election could not be invalidated on that ground.

---