till January 25, 1971 which was the date of the notification regarding the acceptance of Yashpal Kapur's resignation. According to the said notification the President was pleased "to accept the resignation of Shri Y.P.R. Kapoor. Officer on Special Duty in the Prime Minister's Secretariat with effect from the forenoon of the 14th January 1971". The explanation which has been added to Section 123 of the RP Act makes it clear inter alia, that for the purpose of clause (7), notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the publication in the official gazette of the resignation and termination of service of a person in the service of the Central Government shall be conclusive Proof. of his resignation and termination of service and where the date of taking effect of his resignation or termination of service is stated in such publication, also of the fact that such person ceased to be in such service with effect from the said date Yashpal Kapur in view of the newly added explanation, shall be taken to have ceased to be in Government service with effect from January 14, 1971. Any assistance of Yashpal Kapur which the appellant was alleged to have obtained or procured on or after January 14, 1971 would not, therefore, make her guilty of corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the RP Act. 222. Another ground on which the High Court declared the election of the appellant to be void was that she committed corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the RP Act inasmuch as she obtained the assistance of the officers of the UP Government, particularly the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, the Executive Engineer, PWD and the Engineer Hydel Department for construction of rostrums and arrangement of supply of power for loudspeakers in the meeting addressed by her on February 1. 1971 and February 25, 1971 in furtherance of her election prospects. It is not disputed that what was done by the above mentioned officers was in pursuance of official directions and in the discharge or purported discharge of the official duties. This is indeed clear from letter dated November 19, 1969 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to all State Governments wherein there is reference to Rule 6 of the Rules and Instructions for the Protection of the Prime Minister and it is stated: "As the security of the Prime Minister is the concern of the State all arrangements for putting up the rostrum, the barricades etc. at the meeting place, including that of an election meeting will have to be made by the State Government concerned ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... In the case of election meetings, all expenditure on police, setting up of barricades and taking lighting arrangements will be borne by the State Government while expenditure on the public address system and any decorative arrangements will be the responsibility of the political party concerned. (The expenditure on all these items, may in the first instance be borne by the State Government and then recovered from the political parties concerned). In regard to the rostrum only 25 per cent of the cost of the rostrum or Rs. 2500.00 whichever is less, shall be contributed by the party as the rostrum has to be of certain specifications because of security considerations."