SITARAM JIVYABHAI GAVALI V. RAMJIBHAI PETIYABHAI MAHALA AND ORS INSC 81; AIR 1987 SC 1293; 1987 SCR 635; 1987 SCC 262; 1987 JT 767; 1987 SCALE 608

The case Sitaram Jivyabhai Gavali v. Ramjibhai Petiyabhai Mahala & Ors (1987) centered on the disqualification of a candidate from the Lok Sabha elections due to holding an office of profit under the government, as per Article 102(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

Background: • Appellant: Sitaram Jivyabhai Gavali, a temporary government servant under the Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. • Respondent: Ramjibhai Petiyabhai Mahala, a contesting candidate in the same election. • Issue: Whether Gavali’s resignation from his government post was effective before the scrutiny of nomination papers, thereby removing any disqualification under Article 102(1)(a).

Key Facts: 1. Resignation Letter: On November 21, 1984, Gavali submitted a resignation letter, intending to terminate his service immediately. He enclosed a demand draft equivalent to one month’s salary, referencing Rule 5(1)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. 2. Administration’s Response: The Administration informed Gavali that, under Rule 5(1)(a), a government servant’s resignation becomes effective only after a one-month notice period. They stated there was no provision for immediate resignation by paying one month’s salary in lieu of notice. 3. Nomination Acceptance: Despite objections, the Returning Officer accepted Gavali’s nomination on November 28, 1984, giving him the benefit of the doubt regarding his disqualification. 4. Election Result: Gavali won the election. Subsequently, Mahala filed an election petition challenging Gavali’s election on the grounds of disqualification.

Legal Issues: • Validity of Resignation: Whether Gavali’s resignation was effective before the nomination scrutiny, considering the applicable rules and conditions of his appointment. • Holding Office of Profit: Whether Gavali held an office of profit under the government at the time of nomination scrutiny, leading to disqualification under Article 102(1)(a).

Court’s Analysis: • Rule 5(1)(a) of CCS Rules: The Court noted that this rule requires a one-month notice period for resignation, with no provision for immediate resignation by paying salary in lieu of notice. • Condition No. 6 of Appointment Letter: Gavali’s appointment letter included a condition allowing resignation by paying one month’s salary plus allowances. The Court examined whether this condition was supplementary to the CCS Rules and if Gavali complied with it. • Acceptance of Resignation: The Court considered whether the Administration’s conduct, such as accepting files and records from Gavali, amounted to acceptance of his resignation before the nomination scrutiny.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that Gavali’s resignation was not effective before the date of nomination scrutiny. Therefore, he held an office of profit under the government at that time, leading to disqualification under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court upheld the annulment of Gavali’s election to the Lok Sabha.

For a detailed understanding, refer to the full judgment on Indian Kanoon.