Madras High Court
The Chancellor Madurai Kamaraj ... vs Dr. S. Shanmugha Sundaram Son Of M. ... on 29 January, 2001
Author: V.S. Sirpurkar
Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, V. Kanagaraj
ORDER V.S. Sirpurkar,J.
1. This appeal raises an interesting question regarding (he election of four members to the syndicate from amongst the members of the senate of Madurai Kamaraj University.-The elections were held on 25.1.2000 and some four members were declared to be elected. Their elections were challenged before the Chancellor under the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules including statutes. The Chancellor set aside those elections holding that there was infraction of rule 13(2). The respondents herein came before this Court by way of writ petition and the learned single Judge by his judgment has set aside the order of the Chancellor and restored the elections of the four respondents. The present appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge.
2. Mr.Mohan Parasaran, who appeared on behalf of the appellant reiterated the order passed by the Chancellor and contended that under the general principles of the election law the preparation and finalisation of the electoral roll was a sine qua non and such it list should have necessarily been prepared much earlier to the publication of the validly nominated candidates who offered themselves for the election. The reliance was placed on Rule 13 (2) which is as under:
"13(2) A notice regarding the dale on which the poll will be held and a final list of candidates validly nominated shall be sent to every member of the electing authority concerned not less than ten clear days before the date fixed for the poll."
From this the learned counsel contends that every member of the Senate from amongst whose members four candidates to the Syndicate were to be elected must have to be sent a list of the validly nominated candidates and that would presume that after the list of the validly nominated candidates is published ordinarily there shall be no right to vote in favour of the members who steps into Senate thereafter. In this connection, it is an admitted position that on 21.1.2000 seven voters were included and one was deleted out of the seven voters and on 24.1.2000 five members were included in the list of voters who could vote in the election that was to ensue on 25.1.2000, Admittedly all these persons namely 6 + 5 = 11 persons became members of the Syndicate on 21.1.2000 and 24.1.2000 respectively cast their votes. This according to the learned counsel was not permissible and this went against the very basic notion of the election law that the list of the persons who had the right to vote has to be finalised prior to the election.
3. We are unable to agree for the following reasons.
4. A cursory look at the Rule 13(ii) would suggest that the election of the four members to the syndicate from amongst the Senate does not the facility of postal ballot. There is a specific exclusion by that provision. Rule 13(3) provides that, "All members present at the meeting shall be entitled to vote. No vote shall be given by proxy. Members present shall sign in the nominal electoral roll kept for the purpose as a record of voting at the election."
This rule is extremely significant. It gives the voting right to all the members who are present in the meeting. Therefore, there are only two conditions for being able to vote. They are (i) a person should be the member of the Senate; (ii) he should be present at the meeting. Beyond these two conditions there appears to be no other condition spelling out the right of a person to vote for the election to the four posts of syndicate. The rule is extremely significant, particularly,- on- the basis of the fact that there is absolutely no provision for preparation and fmalisation of the electoral roll and according to us the absence of such a provision for preparation and finalisation of the list of the electoral roll is deliberate on the wake of the Rule 13 (3) which suggests that all the members of the senate who are present on the date at the election meeting would be entitled to vote. Unfortunately, this provision of Rule 13(3) was not canvassed before the Chancellor. Once it is clear that there is no provision for preparation and finalisation of electoral roll, the voting right would necessarily be offered to all the persons who are the members of the Senate and who are present at the meeting. This is precisely what has happened here. We, therefore, are in agreement with the learned single Judge, when the learned single Judge says that even if there is any infraction of some members of the Senate not receiving the list of finally nominated candidates lhat infraction by itself cannot invalidate the election. We do not find any merits in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.820 and 821 of 2001 are also closed.