Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahendra Jat vs University Of Raj And Ors on 21 August, 2017
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH
ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13453/2017
Mahendra Jat S/o Sh. Jhabar Mal Jat, Aged About 25 Years, Village-
Prithampuri, Tehsil- Neem Ka Thana, Sikar (currently Residing At Room No
52, DBN Hostel, RU Campus, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. University of Rajasthan Through Its Registrar, University of Rajasthan,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur
2. Dean, Students Welfare & International Students Advisor, University of
Rajasthan Through Its Chairman, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.
3. Chief Election Officer, University of Rajasthan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
Date of Order: August 21, 2017.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Shantanu Sharma, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajeet Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rachit Sharma, for the University.
BY THE COURT:
Impugned is the order dated 2-8-2017, whereby the petitioner has been disallowed from contesting the election for the post of Research Scholar Representative under the Constitution of the Rajasthan University Students' Union 2017 (hereinafter `the RUSU 2 Constitution') formulated by the University of Rajasthan (hereinafter `the University').
Mr. Shantanu Sharma, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the election for the post of Research Scholar Representative were also held in the year 2016, wherein the petitioner along with three others, including one Ravindra Kumar, contested. Ravindra Kumar was declared elected. However in an appeal his election was set aside vide order dated 17-10-2016. Counsel submitted that in terms of clause 6.10.4 of the J.M Lyngdoh Committee's report endorsed by the Apex Court in University of Kerala Vs. Council, Principals Colleges, Kerala [Special Leave Petition
(c)No.24295/2004 decided on 22-9-2006], in the event of any major post of office bearer falling vacant within two months of elections, reelections were to be conducted, failing which the Vice President was to be promoted to the post of President, and Joint Secretary to the post of Secretary. The Apex Court directed till further orders, the recommendations of the J.M. Lyngdoh be operative. It was submitted that in this view of the state of law, following the setting aside of election of Ravindra Kumar, it was incumbent upon the University to hold the reelection for the post of Research Scholar Representative. Not so having done, the petitioner has been denied the opportunity of contesting a proper and valid election but only participated in one where an ineligible candidate 3 has been allowed to contest. That election cannot be reckoned as the only chance to contest an election which the constitution of the RUSU provides. Mr. Shantanu Sharma submitted that in this view of the matter, the petitioner in all fairness and equity is entitled to contest the election on the post of Research Scholar Representative, 2017. The impugned order dated 2-8-2017 mechanically holding to the contrary be set aside and the respondent University be directed to allow the petitioner to contest election for the post of Research Scholar Representative in the election of 2017.
Mr. Ajeet Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Rachit Sharma on behalf of the University, to the contrary submitted that the petition is completely misdirected. He drew attention of the court to the RUSU Constitution, particularly clause 15(f)(iv) thereof, which provides that no student shall be allowed to contest for more than once for the post of Research Scholar Representative in any case. It has been submitted that admittedly the petitioner has contested the election for the post of Research Scholar Representative in the year 2016, though it is not disputed that election of successful candidate therein, Ravindra Kumar was set aside. Mr. A.K,. Sharma submitted that however that was of no avail to the petitioner who had taken a chance at that election. It was submitted that the election had not been counter-mended to not be reckoned for at all. Mr. A.K. Sharma submitted that clause 15(f)(iv) of the RUSU Constitution is 4 not under challenge and till it holds the field it would be determinative of the rights of the students of the University of Rajasthan, including Research Scholars to contest elections. Mr. A.K. Sharma submitted that the University is not a place for political activity alone. The RUSU Constitution therefore balancing the rights of the students with the academic object of their being in the University in the first place has placed a reasonable restriction in public interest. It was further submitted that the judgment of Apex Court in the case of University of Kerala Vs. Council, Principals Colleges, Kerala (supra) and the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee's report do not attract to the case at hand, as they are limited to office bearers of Unions in Universities/ Colleges. He submitted that "Office Bearers" in the Constitution of RUSU have been defined in clause 16 thereof only to include President, Vice President, General Secretary and Joint Secretary. Research Scholar Representative are not office bearers and hence re-election on the election of Ravindra Kumar being set aside was not required even under the Lyngdoh Committee's report. Mr. A.K. Sharma finally submitted that assuming that following the setting aside of Ravindra Kumar's election within two months of his election entailed a re- election being held thereto, and it was so not wrongly held, it would not lead to doing violence to the plain and peremptory language of clause 15(f)(iv) of RUSU Constitution and enable the petitioner to contest the election to the post of Research Scholar Representative, 5 the second time. The petitioner ought to have in 2016 approached the court for a direction for re-election. He did not. A cause of action, for holding of re-election following the election of Ravindra Kumar being set aside, if so obtained was then lost. That cause of action cannot now be conflated with the election of 2017.
Heard. Considered.
Admittedly the petitioner had contested the election to the post of Research Scholar Representative in the year 2016. That election was not counter-mended though indeed the election of successful candidate Ravindra Kumar therein was set aside. The fact of the election setting aside is however of no consequence for reckoning of fact as to whether the petitioner earlier contested for the post of Research Scholar Representative. Right to contest an election is not a fundamental or common law right. It is a statutory one. In the instant case it is determined by the RUSU Constitution under clause 15(f)(iv) thereof, the petitioner earlier having contested a duly held election on the Research Scholar Representative in 2016 cannot again contest election for the said post. I am of the considered view that even recommendations of Lyngodh Committee do not attract to the re- election on the post of Research Scholar Representative, following a vacancy thereon occurring within 2 months of the election for whatever reasons, as the post is not within the meaning of the "office bearers" (to which the said recommendation relates) under clause 16 6 of the RUSU Constitution. Clause 15(f)(iv) of RUSU Constitution which on its plain language prohibits the petitioner from contesting election on the post of Research Scholar Representative in 2017.
I find no force in the petition. Dismissed.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ 7 All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.