G RAMAKRISHNA Vs. CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who was a candidate contesting for the membership of the University-Syndicate has challenged the election of the second respondent and has sought for a declaration that he be declared as elected to the Syndicate. Petitioner is a Reader in English. He is a member of the Academic Council. He along with five others contested for the election to the Syndicate, The election is governed by the Bangalore University Statutes which provide the system of preferential representation by means of Single Transferable Vote. In the election so held, the petitioner, respondent-2 and four others secured the following first preferential votes; petitioner 25 ; Respondent- 2 - 23 ; Dr. Chowdiah - 16 Dr. M. P. Venkatappa - 15; Dr. C. S. Sivarudrappa 10 and K. E. Radhakrishna - 5, Since no one had secured the quota, the Returning Officer had to resort to the Rule of exclusion. Radhakrishna was first to be excluded Followed by Sivarudrappa, Venkatappa and Dr. B. N. Chowdaiah. In this process of exclusion, the petitioner and the second respondent both secured 44 votes. The Chairman having found that there was equality of votes, determined the ejection by lot. Before doing so, he obtained the consent of both the candidates and after the lot was so drawn, the second respondent was declared successful. In adopting this procedure of drawing a lot or determining the election by lot, the Chairman relied upon Clause (6) of para 12.20 in Chapter XII of the Bangalore University Statutes. The said Clause reads thus :

(2.) The petitioner represented the matter to the Chancellor under Section 48 of the Karnataka Universities Act, 1976. It is the grievance of the petitioner, that though he had filed the representation on 18-2-1984, the Chancellor decided the matter only on 11-1-1985. (Though the original order is dated 11-1-1984, by subsequent corrigendum it has been corrected as 11-1-1985). The petitioner has narrated in detail the protests made by him to expedite the disposal of his representation to the Chancellor which only demonstrate -his anguish and anxiety for expeditious decision. It appears that he had to resort to Dharna before Raj Bhavan on 15-1-1985. This aspect of the matter is not of much relevance to decide the point in issue.

(3.) The Chancellor has rejected the representation of the petitioner as per Annexure 'J'. The criticism levelled by the petitioner's Counsel regarding this order is that the Chancellor was not justified in calling for para-wise remarks of the Bangalore University nor was he justified in asking the Commissioner for Public Instruction in Karnataka to furnish a report. It is contended that the Chancellor is influenced by the para-wise remarks of the Bangalore University and the report of the Commissioner for Public Instruction, dated 15-2-1984.