Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Government Post Graduate College on 4 December, 2025
2025:UHC:10785-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (M/B) No.1012 of 2025
4th December , 2025
Rajvindra Kaur ----Petitioner
versus
Government Post Graduate College
and Others ----Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Yash Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner
Mr. Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, learned Standing Counsel for the State
Mrs. Pushpa Bisht, learned counsel for respondent no.4
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.5
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT:(per Sri G. Narendar, C. J.) Heard Shri Yash Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand; Smt. Mamta Bisht, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Shri Aditya Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for respondent no.5. Dr. M.S. Mandrawal, Registrar, Kumaon University and Smt. Renul Bansal, Principal, Government Post Graduate College are also present.
2. The instant petition has a history, whereby the instant petitioner had approached this Court on being 1 2025:UHC:10785-DB prevented from participating in the students' elections on the ground that she had failed to disclose that she was elected a member of the Gram Panchayat, Sisona.
3. This Court, after hearing, had permitted the petitioner to approach the Grievance Redressal Cell established by the University for the purposes of the election. Pursuant to the liberty, the petitioner approached the Grievance Redressal Cell and the Grievance Redressal Cell has ruled in favour of the petitioner, by holding that the rejection was improper. Pursuant to the proceedings of the Grievance Redressal Cell, the Principal had directed re-polling, which was opposed by the Chief Election Officer, who is an Associate Professor of the College. In this background, the petitioner has once again approached this Court.
4. We have perused the nomination form. The nomination form nowhere mandates disclosure of participation in the election except elections as contained in the Lyngdoh Committee report.
5. That apart, this Court had already taken a view that the elections to the Gram Panchayat are not fought on party basis and the contestants are called 2 2025:UHC:10785-DB upon to participate in their individual capacities and not back by any party. In that view, the present stalemate, in our considered opinion is unsustainable.
6. The private respondents had vehemently opposed the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy in the form of the Grievance Redressal Cell. The Grievance Redressal Cell having given their verdict, it was incumbent on the Chief Election Officer and the Principal to abide by the same. The stand of the Chief Election Officer that she would not accept the ruling of the Grievance Redressal Cell is wholly unreasonable and beyond the scope and jurisdiction of her role as an Election Officer.
7. The role of the Chief Election Officer is to conduct elections in a peaceful manner and not create a situation which may agitate the students. In that view, we are of the opinion that the framing of the Grievance Redressal cell is required to be implemented in letter and spirit.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. The Chief Election Officer is directed to conduct the re-polling on 07.02.2026. The re-polling date is fixed for 3 2025:UHC:10785-DB 07.02.2026 in view of the fact that exams have commenced from 02.12.2025 and are expected to continue till 15.01.2026.
9. Writ petition stands ordered, accordingly.
(G. NARENDAR, C.J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 04.12.2025 Rajni 4