Since you have only provided the title "Article 157 in Constitution of India" and the court as "Constitution Article" along with the date "26 January 1950", and no actual case content, it's impossible to provide a case summary. Article 157 of the Constitution of India deals with the qualifications for appointment as Governor. It is not a court case. A court case would involve a dispute regarding the interpretation or application of Article 157.

However, I can provide a general explanation of Article 157 as if it were the subject of a hypothetical legal challenge:

Short Summary

This hypothetical case concerns a challenge to an appointment made under Article 157 of the Constitution of India, which specifies the qualifications for being appointed as a Governor of a State. The final holding would depend on whether the appointed individual met the stipulated qualifications and whether the appointment process adhered to constitutional principles.

Facts

Assume a person, Mr. X, is appointed as the Governor of State Y. A petition is filed challenging his appointment, alleging that he does not meet the qualifications prescribed under Article 157 of the Constitution. The petition highlights that Mr. X is not a citizen of India and is below the age of 35 years.

Issues

1. Whether Mr. X meets the qualifications for appointment as Governor as prescribed under Article 157 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the appointment of a person not meeting the qualifications under Article 157 is constitutionally valid.

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner argues that Article 157 explicitly states that a Governor must be a citizen of India and have completed the age of 35 years. Mr. X does not fulfill these criteria, rendering his appointment unconstitutional and void. The petitioner contends that strict adherence to constitutional provisions is essential for maintaining the integrity of the office of the Governor.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent (likely the government or the appointee) might argue that the citizenship requirement is merely directory and not mandatory, or that Mr. X's contributions to public life outweigh the technical non-compliance with the age requirement. They might also argue that the President, in making the appointment, acted on the advice of the Council of Ministers and the court should not interfere with executive discretion unless there is a clear violation of constitutional principles.

Court's Reasoning

The Court would likely analyze the plain language of Article 157. The Court would likely hold that the requirements of citizenship and age are mandatory and not merely directory. The court would emphasize the importance of upholding the constitutional requirements for high constitutional offices. The court would also examine the intent of the framers of the Constitution in prescribing these qualifications.

Conclusion

The Court would likely rule that the appointment of Mr. X as Governor is unconstitutional and void ab initio (from the beginning) if he does not meet the requirements of Article 157. The Court might direct the government to appoint a qualified individual as Governor in accordance with the Constitution.