TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1968 (10) TMI 117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the appellant void under the Act and no less than five issues with different sub-heads were framed by the court on August 31, 1967, but at the final stage of the hearing only the first issue was canvassed. The said issue reads as follows : "1. (a) Was the respondent No. 1 holding one or more of the three following offices of profit ? (i) his being included in the panel of lawyers prepared by the Central and Western Railway Administration; (ii) his holding the post of the president-member of a tribunal constituted under section 73 of the M.P. Town Improvement Trusts Act, 1960; (iii) his holding the office of Professor of law in the Madhav College, Ujjain on regular salary of Rs. 250 p.m.; (b) If so, its effect ?" 4. Before the trial Judge a number of documents were exhibited and some witnesses were examined. The learned trial Judge was of opinion that the appellant, the successful candidate held an office of profit under Government being on the panel of lawyers prepared by the Central and Western Railway Administration and having been at the material time a Professor of Law in the Madhav College on a regular salary of Rs. 250 per month, but he was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 'office of profit' finds a place in an old English Act, namely, the Act of Settlement, 1701, Section 3 of which provided that "no person having an office or place of profit under the Crown could be a member of the House of Commons." The meaning of the expression came up for consideration by this Court in a recent case. The Statesman (Private) Ltd. v. H. R. Deb and Ors., [1968] 3 SCR 614 decided on April 2, 1968. There, a question arose as to whether the respondent, H.R. Deb, was qualified to hold a judicial office in India in terms of Section 7(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Under that provision "a person shall not be qualified for appointment as the presiding officer of a Labour Court, unless inter alia... (d) he has held any judicial office in India for not less than seven years". The facts relating to the career of Mr. Deb as found by this Court were as follows. He was first appointed in 1940 as a Sub Deputy Collector and was vested with powers of a Third Class Magistrate. Thereafter, he was vested with powers of a Second Class Magistrate, and after a year or so with those of a First Class Magistrate. There seems to have been some difference of opinion between th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o exercise an employment or a position to which certain duties are attached as observed by this Court, it is difficult to see why the engagement of the appellant in this case under the letter of February 6, 1962 would not amount to the appellant's holding an office. By the said letter he accepted certain obligations and was required to discharge certain duties. He was not free to take a brief against the Railway Administration. Whether or not the Railway Administration thought it proper to entrust any particular case or litigation pending in the court to him, it was his duty to watch all cases coming up for hearing against the Railway Administration and to give timely intimation of the same to the office of the Chief Commercial Superintendent. Even if no instructions regarding any particular case were given to him, he was expected to appear in court and obtain an adjournment. In effect this cast a duty on him to appear in court and obtain an adjournment so as to protect the interests of the Railway. The duty or obligation was a continuing one so long as the railway did not think it proper to remove his name from the panel of Railway lawyers or so long as he did not intimate to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....basis of an arrangement between himself and the Principal. In July 1952 the Principal wrote to the Education Department that the appellant should be formally appointed. Thereupon the Deputy Secretary, Education Department, wrote to the Director of Education on April 7, 1952 conveying sanction of the Rajpramukh to the appellant's appointment on one year's probation as a part-time Professor of Law in Madhav College on a fixed salary of Rs. 250 per month with effect from the date he assumed his duties in a temporary capacity, that is to say, August 1, 1951. The appellant was employed only as a part-time lecturer without increment or Provident Fund benefits. His appointment was never confirmed by any letter. It is, however, the common case of the parties that he continued to act as a lecturer in Law in Madhav College till July 1967. Up to March 1959 the College was not only a Government-owned institution but one which was being managed from day to day directly by its Education Department. In 1959 there were certain changes in the management of the institution, but without the Government relinquishing ownership or ultimate control. As a matter of fact, an agreement was entered i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant could continue in service only till he attained the age of 55. The age of superannuation was later increased to 58. But even on this basis the appellant had attained the age of 58 on June 30, 1964 and would be deemed to have retired from Government service unless a special order to continue him in service was made. No such order was, as a matter of fact, made. Under the Rules of the University a teacher could be continued in service up to the age of sixty but not beyond with this qualification that if a teacher reached the age of sixty during the currency of an academic session he might be permitted to continue in service and retire at the end of the session. 13. The letters which passed between the Vikram University on the one hand and the Government of Madhya Pradesh and/or the appellant in this case on the other which form part of the record do not permit us to come to any conclusion as to the manner in which the employment of the appellant under the Government as a part-time Professor of Law in Madhav College came to an end. On January 1, 1965 the Under Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Education Department, wrote a letter to the Principal of Madhav College....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e last letter may legitimately be subject to a comment that efforts were being made to establish that the appellant had ceased to be in Government service after June 30, 1964. It is all the more surprising that the letter of October 9, 1967 should be written at such an opportune moment when more than two years before the Under Secretary was himself enquiring of the Principal as to whether the appellant had been confirmed in his existing post. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that after attaining the age of 58 the appellant must be treated as not in Government service and as the University had the power to manage the affairs of the College, in effect it retained him in exercise of its rights under the above mentioned rule but this would not make the appellant's employment one under the Government. On the other hand, it was contended by learned counsel for the respondent that we should ignore these deeming provisions of the Fundamental Rules and hold that as a matter of fact the appellant had continued in service till 1967 notwithstanding the Fundamental Rules of the Madhva Pradesh Government and the rules of the University which permitted the termination of his....