BHAWANA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a student of the first semester of the B.A Programme of the respondent No.5 Swami Shardhanand College; she was admitted to the college on 12th July, 2011; she, in pursuance to the notification of the elections of Delhi University Students Union (DUSU), filed her nomination for the posts of President, vice-president, Secretary and Joint Secretary. It is the case of the petitioner that though she was required to submit a photocopy of the identity card alongwith the nomination form but upon the petitioner representing that identity card had not been issued by the respondent No.5 college till then, the respondent No.2 being the election incharge, directed the petitioner to deposit the admission/fee slip alongwith her photograph, in substitution of the identity card.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed, aggrieved from the rejection of her nomination for the reason of her inability to produce the identity card. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.5 college having not issued the identity card to new students till then, the rejection of the nomination for the reason of inability to produce the identity card is illegal.

(3.) AS per the terms and conditions printed on the nomination form, the students desirous of contesting election were required to produce their identity card and were entitled to withdraw their candidature /nomination for a particular post only on production of the identity card. It is thus the contention of the counsel for the university that the petitioner was aware as far back as on 4th August, 2011 that the identity card was a must for participating in the elections and the petitioner cannot now be heard to make the grievance of rejection of her nomination for being unable to produce the identity cards. It is further contended that the petitioner under rules of the election was not entitled to simultaneously contest for more than one post but admittedly filled up her nomination for four posts. It is contended that the petitioner is thus in any case in violation of the rules of the election. It is also controverted that the petitioner could be permitted to contest election by producing any other proof of identity in substitution of the identity card.