Election petition amendments and election employment limits: new corrupt practice charges after limitation are impermissible, and piece-work alone is not employment.

In an election petition, particulars of a pleaded corrupt practice may be amended or supplemented, but an amendment that introduces a materially new charge after limitation is impermissible and cannot support a finding of corrupt practice. The pleaded case must clearly disclose the ground challenged; where later amendments add new allegations naming officials for the first time, they go beyond permissible particulars. On employment in connection with an election, payment for specific piece-work does not by itself establish a contract of service or personal employment, so the statutory limit on persons employed is not attracted without proof of employment. The election challenge therefore failed on both grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Election Tribunal could permit amendment of an election petition so as to introduce fresh instances of corrupt practice, and whether the amendment in question amounted to a new ground barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the engagement of two persons for preparing electoral materials constituted employment in connection with the election so as to attract the statutory limit on persons employed.

Issue (i): Whether the Election Tribunal could permit amendment of an election petition so as to introduce fresh instances of corrupt practice, and whether the amendment in question amounted to a new ground barred by limitation.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between the grounds on which an election is challenged, the material facts supporting those grounds, and the particulars of corrupt or illegal practices. On that scheme, particulars could be amended and supplemented, and the power extended to fresh instances if they related to a ground already pleaded. The broader procedural power under the civil procedure rules also applied to election proceedings, but it could not be used to permit a new charge or a substantially new petition after limitation had expired. The original pleading did not clearly and precisely state a corrupt practice of procuring the assistance of government servants, and the later amendment introduced materially new allegations naming specific village officers for the first time.

Conclusion: The amendment, insofar as it introduced a new charge, was beyond the Tribunal's power and the finding based on it could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the engagement of two persons for preparing electoral materials constituted employment in connection with the election so as to attract the statutory limit on persons employed.

Analysis: The evidence showed only that the persons were paid for specific work on a piece-work basis. That did not by itself establish a contract of service or personal employment by the candidate. In the absence of evidence proving a relationship of employment, the statutory prohibition could not be invoked merely because the work related to election expenses.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention was unsupported and had to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The election petition could not be sustained on either of the two grounds accepted by the Tribunal, so the appeal succeeded and the election challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an election petition, particulars of a pleaded corrupt practice may be amended or supplemented, but an amendment that effectively introduces a new ground after limitation has expired is impermissible; additionally, a contract for specific work does not amount to employment unless a contract of service is proved.

---