In the instant case the respondent to the election petition, the Prime Minister filed her nomination from the Rae Bareily constituency on 1-2-1971. One K who was a Central Government servant and a Gazetted officer of the rank of an Under Secretary was deputed to serve in the Prime Minister’s Secreariat as an officer on special duty. As he had political ambitions he, after expressing his desire to the Prime Minister to resign from his post submitted his resignation on 13-1-1971 to one H who was incharge of the Prime Minister’s Secretariat. H relying upon R 3 of the Government of India Transaction of Business Rules orally accepted the resignation as the head of the Prime Minister’s Secretariat. His resignation tendered on 13-1-1971 was accepted by the President of India on 25-1-1971 with effect from 14-1-1971 by means of a notification published on 6-2-71. The respondent appointed K her election agent on 1-2-71 K did not work in the Prime Minister Secretariat after 13-1-71 and he drew no salary as government servant after that date. It was alleged that K made certain speeches on different dates between 7-1-71 to 25-1-71 supporting the respondent's candidature in Rae Bareily constituency. There was no evidence whatsoever from any source that K did so either after having been requested by the respondent to do so or with her knowledge of consent or approval. There was also no evidence that K was constituted a sort of general de factor agent of the Prime Minister even before he became her election agent on 1-2-71. The uncontroverted evidence was that K went to Rae Bareily voluntarily. Despite the large number of speeches and statements the respondent might have made throughout the country in this period not a single statement made by her could even be cited in which she had said before 1-2-1971 that she was standing as a candidate from the Rae Bareily constituency. Held that no corrupt practice could be said to have been committed by the respondent vicariously due to anything done by K because he acted voluntarily he was not a Government servant after 14-1-1971 and the respondent was not a candidate before 1-2-1971 i.e. the date of filing of her nomination. She became a candidate only on 1-2-1971. Ele Petn. No. 5 of 1971. D/- 12-6-1975 (All) Reversed. (Paras 444, 445) Neither the Government nor the Government servant is in a worse position than an ordinary master or servant on a matter governed by contract. In fact, Article 310 makes it clear that in such a case, the tenure of office of a Central Government servant is ‘‘during the pleasure of the President’’. In the instant case the President’s pleasure was contained in the notification dated 25-1-1971 showing that the President had accepted the resignation of K with effect from the forenoon of 14-1-1971. And, this is what K himself wanted. Hence, there is no difficulty at all in accepting the correctness of resignation effective from the date which both parties to the contact on patent facts had agreed to No rights of an innocent 3rd party were either involved or affected by such an acceptance of the resignation from the date immediately after the date on which k had tendered his resignation. That was also the date after which he had ceased to work or draw his salary.