Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Petitioner Satish Chander Sharma has filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the University of Rajasthan and 8 others to challenge the election of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 Shri L. L. Joshi and Shri Surendra Prasad Vyas to the Syndicate of the said University and has prayed that by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction the declaration of the result of the election of two non-teacher members to the Syndicate, that is, the election of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 be quashed and that a writ of quo warranto or any other suitable writ, order or direction be issued declaring respondents Nos. 6 and 7 as not entitled to hold the office of the membership of the Syndicate.

It is further alleged that the voting papers were duly submitted by the voters in the office of the Registrar of the University and the same were opened by Shri J. N. Mathur, the Deputy Registrar on 8th of October, 1969, and after counting the ame he declared the result that respondents Nos. 6 and 7 were returned to the Syndicate. This election has been challenged by the petitioner, inter aha, on the grounds that the nomination paper of Shri N. N. Gidwani was wrongly rejected by the Vice-Chancellor and the non-inclusion of the name of Shri N. N. Gidwani in the voting paper vitiated the result of the election; that the voting paper of Shri G. C. Chatterji which was not duly attested by the attesting authority was wrongly counted; that the counting was done by the Deputy Registrar who was not authorised under the ordinance to count the voting papers; and that the counting was not properly done. It was also alleged that after the nomination paper of Shri N. N. Gidwani was rejected by the Vice-Chancellor, the Syndicate of the University held a meeting on 27th of September, 1969 and enacted a new Ordinance 384-B laying down that a non-teacher employee of the University or its affiliated colleges/approved institutions shall not seek elections to the Senate or any other authority or body of the University. It is contended that the Syndicate was not authorised to make such an ordinance laying down qualifications for the candidates to seek election as non-teacher members to the Syndicate because it runs contra to the provisions of Section 21 (vi) of the University of Rajputana Act, 1946, as amended from time to time (hereinafter called the Act), It is, therefore, prayed that Ordinance 384-B which was beyond the competence of the Syndicate be declared void and it may also be quashed.

28. The Syndicate by making Ordinance No. 384-B has put a rider on the qualification prescribed by the Act that a non-teacher employee of the University or its affiliated colleges/approved institutions shall not seek elections to the Senate or any other authority or body of the University. This question has been posed by the petitioner whether such a rider can be put on the qualification of a member of Senate to seek election to the Syndicate by making such an ordinance.

29. Section 29 of the Act lays down the matters for which the Syndicate can make Ordinances. In the opening portion of Section 29, the Legislature has clearly given a mandate that while making ordinances, the Syndicate shall keep in view that the ordinances are not made inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Section 21 (vi) provides for electing two persons to the Syndicate and they should be two non-teacher members of the Senate. The only qualification that a candidate should possess for being elected under Section 21 (vi) of the Act is that he should be a member of the Senate and should not be a teacher. The Legislature, however, did not prescribe any other qualification for electing the members under this clause. Ordinance S84-B, however, prescribes that an employee of the University cannot seek election under Section 21 (vi). This restriction takes away the right of a member of the Senate who otherwise fulfils all the qualifications mentioned in Clause (vi) of Section 21 of the Act. This provision embodied in Ordinance S84-B is, therefore, inconsistent with the specific provision of Section 21 (vi) and, therefore, such an ordinance cannot be made under Section 29 of the Act. The Ordinance 384-B is ultra vires the power of the University and hence it is void.

31. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that even if Ordinance No. 384-B was not in force on the day the nomination paper of Shri Gidwani was rejected by the Vice-Chancellor he could not seek election because of the resolution of the Syndicate dated 13th of January, 1969 which restricted all the employees of the University to seek election to any office or authority of the University, It is clear that Resolution No. 10 of 13th January, 1969 cannot be placed at the level of the statutory rule or ordinance. The Syndicate, in order to administer the affairs of the University, had, however, put a condition of service for its employees that they would not be elected to any post or office of the University. If any employee took to his head to violate the mandate of the resolution, then he would at the most expose himself to any disciplinary action if the University authority chooses to take against such employee for not obeying the command of the Syndicate issued by it in its administrative capacity. The resolution cannot have the effect of taking away the rights of a member of the Senate to contest the election for the membership of the Syndicate under Section 21 (vi) of the Act. In my opinion, the resolution cannot be meant to have laid down any qualifications for seeking election under Clause (vi) of Section 21 of the Act. The Vice-Chancellor had no authority to reject the nomination paper of Shri Gidwani on that ground when Shri Gidwani, in spite of the administrative direction issued by the Syndicate by adopting Resolution No. 10 on 13th of January, 1969 had filed his nomination paper.