Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(2) The Dean shall hold office for a term of three years and shall be eligible for reelection/or a further term of three years.

2. The petitioner was elected as the Dean of Medical Faculty of Saurashtra University with effect from May 23, 1991. The said first term came to an end on May 22, 1994. The petitioner was elected as the Dean of Medical Faculty for a further term of three years from May 23, 1994 to May 22, 1997. The petitioner is an elected member of the Senate of the Saurashtra University and the said term is going to expire on May 22, 2002. The elections to the post of Dean of a Faculty are being held from amongst Senate members. The petitioner is, therefore, desirous of contesting for the post of Dean of Medical Faculty for the third consecutive term also. However, in response to the petitioner's letter dated January 15, 1997, the respondent-University submitted a reply that the petitioner is not eligible for reelection for the third term in view of the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Saurashtra University Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(v) he shall inspect and guide the University Departments, affiliated colleges, recognised institutions and approved institutions in respect of subjects under the Faculty;
(vi) he shall be responsible for the due observance of the Statutes, the Ordinances, and the Regulations relating to the Faculty; and
(vii) he shall recommend to the Syndicate for approval, proposals for the programmes of visiting teachers and for the exchange of teachers.

A perusal of the aforesaid functions does lend support to the argument of Mr. Nanavati that when Deans of the Faculties in all other Universities discharge identical functions and are not eligible for re-election for the third term, even absence of the word "only" cannot be fatal to the interpretation which has been consistently placed by the University on the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Act to the effect that an individual is not eligible for re-election for the third consecutive term.

8. That is, however, not the end of the matter. It cannot be gainsaid that ultimately it is for the electorate, i.e., the Senate members to decide whether they want to have a fresh Dean (i.e. to say, a fresh Dean with fresh ideas) or they want to have an experienced Dean. Suppose the electorate try out a new incumbent, but after watching his performance for three years, they are not satisfied with the said incumbent and on the next occasion they do not want to try another inexperienced person, but want to again elect the same experienced hand, who had earlier held the office of Dean for two consecutive terms and who had in the intervening period of three years gone on deputation to another institution and acquired fresh insight into academic administration. Is there anything in the language or scheme of the Act which prevent the electorate from adopting such a course of action?

9. In my view, while the language of the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Act supports Mr. Nanavati's contention that the incumbent of the office of Dean of a Faculty is not eligible for re-election for the third consecutive term, there is nothing in the language or scheme of the Act which provides that after two consecutive terms a person can never contest for the office of Dean of a Faculty in future. In other words, while the language of Section 25(2) contains an implied bar against contesting for re-election for the third consecutive term for the office of Dean of a Faculty, a person is not debarred from contesting election for the office of Dean in future, i.e., if it is not the third consecutive term, but it is another term with break/s of one or more terms after two consecutive terms. This may not be the position in case of other Universities where the legislature has expressly provided that the Dean shall hold the office for a term of three years and shall be eligible for re-election for a further term of three years only.