Court struck down the Ordinance. One of the grounds which weighed with the High Court in striking down the Ordinance was that it contravened Article 14 of the Constitution. The State and the Councillors came up in appeal to this Court. It was held by this Court that the Ordinance was valid and that it successfully cured the invalidity of the electoral rolls and of elections to the Cuttack Municipality. The Ordinance was further held not to offend Art. 14 of the Constitution as its object was not only to save the elections to the Cuttack Municipality but also to other municipalities whose validity might be challenged on similar grounds. The Ordinance, in the opinion of the Court did not single out the respondent for discriminatory treatment. Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Constitution Bench of this Court observed : ‘‘The Cuttack Municipal Elections had been set aside by the High Court and if the Governor thought that in the public interest, having regard to the factors enumerated in the preamble to the Ordinance, it was necessary to validate the said elections, it would not necessarily follow that the Ordinance suffers from the vice of contravening Art. 14.’’ It was further observed : ‘‘Therefore, if the infirmity in the electoral rolls on which the decision of the High Court in the earlier writ petition was based had not been applicable to the electoral rolls in regard to other Municipalities in the State of Orissa, then it may have been open to the Governor to issue an Ordinance only in respect of the Cuttack Municipal Elections and if, on account of special circumstances or reasons applicable to the Cuttack Municipal Elections a law was passed in respect of the said elections alone, it could not have been challenged as unconstitutional under Art. 14. Similarly, if Mr. Bose was the only litigant affected by the decision and as such formed a class by himself, it would have been open to the Legislature to make a law only in respect of his case. But as we have already pointed out, the Ordinance does not purport to limit its operation only to the Cuttack Municipality, it purports to validate the Cuttack Municipal Elections and the electrol rolls in respect of other Municipalities as well. Therefore, we are satisfied that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that Section 4 contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution.’’ 229. In Kanta Kathuria v. Manak Chand Surana, (AIR 1970 SC 694) (supra) the dispute related to the election of the appellant to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. The appellant in that case had been appointed as a Special Government Pleader to represent the State of Rajasthan in an arbitration case. The appellant then stood for election to the State Legislative Assembly and was declared elected. The election of the appellant was challenged inter alia on the ground that the appellant held an office of profit within the meaning of Article 191 (1) of the Constitution. The High Court set aside the election of the appellant. The appellant then came up in appeal to this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, Rajasthan Act 5 of 1969 was passed declaring among others that the holder of the office of Special Government Pleader was not disqualified from being chosen or for being a member of the State Legislative Assembly. The Act was made retrospective