SULTAN SADIQ versus SANJAY RAJ SUBBA AND ORS.

SULTAN SADIQ versus SANJAY RAJ SUBBA AND ORS.

The appellant was not holding an office of profit since his services as Assistant Teacher were not regularized, the regularization order was not communicated or accepted, and his services had already been terminated by school management. No jural relationship existed between the appellant and the State government; therefore, he was not disqualified under Article 191 of the Constitution or Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Parties
Appellant: Sultan Sadiq; Respondent: Sanjay Raj Subba
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment and order of Gauhati High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Office of Profit, Disqualification of Elected Candidates, Provincialisation of School Teachers, Regularization of Services, Master Servant Relationship
Election Law Office of Profit Disqualification of Elected Candidates Provincialisation of School Teachers Regularization of Services Master Servant Relationship

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sultan Sadiq

Appellant

Sanjay Raj Subba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant held an office of profit under the State Government at the time of election
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's services as Assistant Teacher were regularized and communicated
  3. 3 Whether a jural relationship existed between the appellant and the State government

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not holding an office of profit since his services as Assistant Teacher were not regularized, the regularization order was not communicated or accepted, and his services had already been terminated by school management. No jural relationship existed between the appellant and the State government; therefore, he was not disqualified under Article 191 of the Constitution or Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment and order of Gauhati High Court set aside.

Orders

  • No order as to costs