Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. On coming to know about the voting by proxies, ten members of the Syndicate recorded their dissent. Three proxy members attended and voted are the Additional Secretary to Government, Department of Law; the Deputy Director of Department of Health; and the Director of Legal Studies (in-charge), Chennai. The objection/dissent was ignored by the second respondent and the 4th respondent was declared as elected. The only contention of the petitioner is that since the proxy members are not entitled to vote, allowing three proxy members to participate in the voting tilted the result and vitiates the election and therefore the 4th respondent's election as Search Committee Member is illegal and consequently the Government Order issued constituting Search Committee, including the 4th respondent through G.O.(1D)No.259 Higher Education Department, dated 10.9.2012 is also illegal.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit and relied on the statutory provisions by contending that if the proxies are not allowed to vote, the 4th respondent ought not to have been elected as member of the Search Committee as a Syndicate nominee and by allowing three persons, who attended the meeting as proxies to vote, has vitiated the election and the subsequent nomination as Search Committee member. The learned counsel also submitted that if a proxy is entitled to vote, the same should be specifically stated in the statute and for instance, Section 24(4) of the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Act specifically provides voting rights to the proxies, and in this case, in the absence of any specific provision under the Madras University Act, 1923 and statutes, the respondents 1 and 2 are not justified in permitting the proxies to cast their vote. Therefore, learned counsel prayed that the election/nomination of the 4th respondent as Member of the Search Committee and the consequential order issued by the Government are to be declared as invalid and for a consequential direction to hold election to nominate a member from the Syndicate to serve as member of the Search Committee afresh.

10. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for third respondent. In spite of service of notice to the 4th respondent as early as on 27.9.2012 and affidavit of service filed on 5.10.2012, none appeared for 4th respondent.

11. The election to nominate one member to the Syndicate of the Madras University to recommend a panel of three names to the Chancellor for appointment of Vice-Chancellor is provided under Section 11(1) and (2) of the Madras University Act, 1923. The period of office of the Vice-Chancellor was to expire on 12.10.2012. In compliance with the said statutory requirement, for nominating a Syndicate member through election, a special meeting of the Syndicate was convened on 20.7.2012 at 11.00 a.m. The Syndicate of the Madras University consist of 27 members, of which seven are ex-officio members. The 4th respondent's name was proposed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, which was seconded by the Commissioner of Technical Education, Chennai-25. Prof.S.Sathikh's name was proposed by Dr.M.Michael Aruldoss, Professor and Head of the Department of Hendocrinology, University of Madras, who is a Syndicate member, which name was seconded by the Professor and Head of Department of Journalism and Communication viz., G.Ravindran. Out of the seven ex-officio members, two of them sent proxies and Prof.Dr.S.Narayanaperumal, Director of Legal Studies (in-charge) also participated and voted as there was no regular Director of Legal Studies appointed. The two proxy members were also allowed to vote and their votes were also counted during the election and the 4th respondent was declared as elected nominee of the Syndicate to serve in the Search Committee. Ten persons objected the action of the Returning Officer in giving voting rights to the proxies. The said election of the 4th respondent as nominee of the Syndicate to be in the Search Committee was objected by the members of the Syndicate by sending a report before the Chancellor on 23.7.2012, pointing out that Chapter XVI-B pertaining to conduct of election and items 3 and 4 of the University of Madras Calendar Volume-I of the Madras University Act, 1923 ex-officio members if are unable to attend the meeting, they can depute members, however no vote shall be given by proxy. The Additional Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Department of Law; the Deputy Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Health; and the Director in charge of Director of Legal Studies, Chennai were permitted to vote as proxies in spite of their raising objection. Hence the Chancellor was requested to intervene and do the needful. It is seen from the pleadings that even though the Chancellor has called for remarks, no reply was given to the said objection already raised and ultimately the 4th respondent was nominated as Member of the Search Committee through G.O.(1D)No.259 Higher Education Department, dated 10.9.2012.

15. In the light of the above undisputed facts, viz., 4th respondent is elected by majority of valid votes, which is more than the votes secured by the rival candidate viz., Prof.S.Sathikh, the election of 4th respondent for nomination to the Syndicate to act as Member of the Search Committee and the consequential notification issued by the third respondent in G.O.(1D)No.259 Higher Education Department dated 10.9.2012 cannot be declared as invalid.

16. As the issue No.1 i.e, permitting the two proxies to vote in favour the 4th respondent has not materially affected the election of the 4th respondent, who secured 12 votes when compared to the 11 votes secured by the rival candidate, the issue as to whether the respondents 1 and 2 are justified in permitting the proxies to vote in the election held on 20.7.2012 has become purely academic insofar as this case is concerned. Therefore the said issue need not be answered at this juncture.