Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Amulya Maity vs The Vidyasagar University And Others on 9 July, 2015
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
Sl. 25
09.07.2015.
S.d.
W. P. 3882(W) of 2015
Sri Amulya Maity
Vs
The Vidyasagar University and others
Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya
Mr. Malay Bhattacharya
Mr. Pradip Paul
....for the petitioner.
Ms. Debjani Sengupta
Mr. Abhan Majumder
..for the University.
Mr. Uttam Kumar Bhattacharya
...for the respondent no. 7.
Mr. Saibal Acharya Mr. Sujit Bhunia ...for the respondent no. 8.
The instant application has been preferred challenging, inter alia, a memorandum dated June 27, 2015 issued by the respondent no.2.
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Governing Body of the Vidyasagar University was reconstituted and January 6, 2015 was the date fixed for election of the President. On the said date, twelve members 2 of the Governing Body participated and upon counting of votes there was a tie and on the basis of choice exercised by the Chairman by his casting vote, the petitioner herein was elected as the President. Subsequent thereto, the respondent no. 2 issued a letter dated January 27, 2015 stating, inter alia, that in terms of the resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of the Vidyasagar University (hereinafter referred to as said University) and on the basis of a legal opinion received, the election of the President of the 8th Governing Body of the Sabang Sajanikanta Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the said college) "may be conducted afresh after the completion of election of the representatives of each and every stakeholder of the college and the necessary re-constitution of the Governing Body accordingly as per the provision of the First Statues of Vidyasagar University1983 (amended up to 1997)".
He has also brought to the notice of the court a letter issued by the respondent no. 7 on 31st July, 2014 to the Inspector of Colleges seeking clarification regarding representation of General Secretary of the Students' Union in the election of the President as the term of the Students' Union was up to 30th June and that thereafter a care-taker union would function.
Answering such clarification the Inspector observed as follows:-
3
"This is for your kind information and necessary action that the G.S of the SU of Sabang Mahavidyalaya , at present 'care taker Union' is not eligible to attend the meeting of the next reconstitution GB of College as per norms. So you are directed to not send the letter to him."
Drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of Statutes 97 and 105 of the Vidyasagar University First Statute 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the said Statue), Mr. Bhattacharaya submits that there can be no dispute as regards the proposition that in case of a tie, an authority to exercise casting vote is conferred upon the Chairman of the meeting and in the backdrop of the admitted fact that there was a tie, the Chairman rightly exercised his choice by his casting vote. As such, the election of the petitioner as the President should be upheld and that the respondent no. 2 could not have issued a direction towards election afresh and the said decision of the respondent no. 2 is absolutely illegal.
According to Mr. Bhattacharaya, the Inspector of Colleges erred in not allowing a representative of the existing care-taker union to participate in the concerned election and for such error on the part of the Inspector, a valid election cannot be upset.
Per contra, Ms. Sengupta, learned advocate appearing for the University authorities submits that election was held in derogation to the provisions of Statute 105(1)(g) wherein it has been categorically specified that in the absence of the Student Union or a 4 duly elected General Secretary of the Students' Union, the regular students of the college were required to elect a representative under the supervision of the Principal of the College. In the instant case, no such procedure was followed, though admittedly on the date of the President election, there was no regular Students' Union. As such, it has been rightly observed by the respondent no. 2 in his letter dated January 27, 2015 that the President election needs to be conducted afresh since admittedly the election of representative of a regular Students' Union was not held prior to the President election and all the stages towards reconstitution of the Governing Body were not over.
Mr. Uttam Bhattachararya, learned advocate for the college authorities submits that they have acted in terms of the directions issued by the Vidyasagar University authorities and that upon forwarding of necessary papers, the university authorities themselves sent the university nominee and the state government nominee was also forwarded with a direction towards reconstitution of the Governing Body and that at no juncture it was advised that the election of the President should not be held prior to the regular election of a Students' Union.
However, Mr. Bhattacharaya submits that during pendency of the writ application, the election of Students' Union has been held on 29th of January, 2015 and the new Students' Union has taken 5 over charge and presently there is an existing General Secretary of the said union.
I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and have considered the materials on record.
The undisputed facts are that on the date of the President election (January 6, 2015), there was no existing Students' Union and that there was no participating representative of a Students' Union in the said President election and that on the date of the President election, all the stages towards reconstitution of the Governing Body were not complete and that choice was exercised by the Chairman by his casting vote, a day after the date scheduled for the President election.
The democratic process towards election of the President of a Governing Body, as earmarked under the Statutes cannot be deviated from. The Statues clearly specify the steps required to be followed in the event there is no regular Students' Union and that in such circumstances, in terms of the Statutes, the regular students of the college, as one unit, should have elected one representative from amongst themselves on the basis of the simple majority through vote by secret ballot to be arranged by the Principal or in his absence by a teacher of the college authorised by the Principal.
In the instant case, no such procedure was followed and had such procedure been followed in strict consonance with the 6 Statues, the issue as regards the exercise of choice, in case of a tie, by the Chairman by his casting vote, would not have occasioned and that as such I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the directives contained in the memorandum dated 27th January, 2015 issued by the respondent no.2.
For the reasons as discussed above, I do not find any merit in the instant writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)