KANTA KATHURIA vs MANAK CHAND SURANA

The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not holding an office of profit under Article 191(1) of the Constitution, as the position of Special Government Pleader did not exist independently of the individual holder. The Court clarified that an office must be a permanent and substantive position, and the notification of the appellant's appointment did not create such an office. Additionally, the Rajasthan Act 5 of 1969, which retrospectively validated the appellant's election by declaring the office not disqualifying, was upheld, thereby removing any disqualification that may have existed prior to the Act's passage.