The term ‘office of profit’ is not defined in the constitution and is left to the judiciary to interpret. The term ‘profit’ means some pecuniary gain attached to the office. The office has not been defined either in the Constitution or in the Representation of People Act.
In Mahadeo v. Shantibhai and Ors. (. 2SCR 422.) (whether appointment on the panel of lawyers by Railway Administration is that office for profit), the Court, referred to Mcmillon v. Guest ((1942) A.C 561.), where Lord Wright said, "The word 'office' is of indefinite content. Its various meanings cover four columns of the new English Dictionary, but I take as the most relevant for purposes of this case the following; a position or place to which certain duties are attached, especially one of a more or less public character."
The Supreme Court in case of M.V. Rajashekaran and Ors. v. Vatal Nagaraj and Ors. (AIR 2002 SC 74) accepted the test propounded by the Lord Wright and held that the petitioner is holding an office of profit who is appointed by the Karnataka government to a one man commission for studies of the problems of the Kannadigas in the Border areas of Kerala, Maharastra, Andhra Pradesh, Goa and Tamil Nadu.
Therefore, yes, a one man commission IS an Office of Profit.