Office of profit under Government: State control over basic education board made the teacher disqualified from legislative membership.

An assistant teacher in a Basic Primary School run through the State-controlled basic education framework was treated as holding an office of profit under the State Government. The Court applied a substance-over-form test, focusing on governmental control, appointment and disciplinary powers, and financial dependence of the Board on State funds. Because the Board functioned as an instrumentality of Government and the employee's post was effectively under State control, the disqualification under Article 191(1)(a) was attracted. The rejection of the nomination was therefore valid, and the election challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an Assistant Teacher in a Basic Primary School run by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education held an office of profit under the State Government and was therefore disqualified from being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 showed that primary education was taken over by the State through a Board constituted by the Government, with its controlling structure largely made up of Government officers and Government nominees. The Board's functions included organising, controlling and supervising basic education, taking over basic schools from local bodies, receiving grants from the State Government, and acting subject to binding directions issued by the State Government under Section 13. The employees of local bodies engaged in basic schools were transferred to the Board under Section 9(1), the appointing authorities for the relevant posts were Government officers, disciplinary control was regulated by Government-made rules, and the financial needs of the Board were substantially met by Government funds. On these features, the Board was treated in substance as an instrumentality of the Government, and the employee's office was held under the State Government. The earlier decisions on offices of profit were distinguished on the footing that those cases involved either religious institutions, Government companies with indirect control, or honorary office without remuneration.

Conclusion: The respondent held an office of profit under the State Government and was disqualified under Article 191(1)(a); the rejection of his nomination was valid and the election petition could not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Whether a person holds an office of profit under the Government depends on the real degree of governmental control, the source of remuneration, the power of appointment and removal, and the functional and financial dependence of the body on Government; if the body is in substance an arm of the Government, its employees hold office under the Government.

---