MATHEW CHERIAN Vs. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the rejection of 'Nomination' paper submitted by the Petitioner in respect of Election to the Senate of the Respondent University from the 'Teachers' Constituency', admittedly in tune with Ext. P-1 Election Notification, but allegedly for not satisfying the requirement of Statutse No. 29 of the University of Cochin First Statutes, is correct or not is the question involved.

(2.) The election to the Senate as well as to the Academic Council was notified as per Ext. P-1 notification dated 30-11-2010. In fact, election to the Senate is conducted as per the mandate of Section 19 of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986, while election to the Academic Council is as per Section 23(2) of the said Act. Different categories of elected members, as specified under sub Clauses (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) are involved with regard to the election to the 'Senate' under Section 19. The issue involved pertains to 'Elected Members' under category (v) of Section 19.

(3.) The Electoral roll/Ext. P-2 dated 26-9-2010 was published by the Returning Officer (second Respondent) much earlier and the Petitioner's name was included therein at SI. No. 43. Pursuant to Ext. P-l notification, the name of the Petitioner was proposed and seconded by the electors included in Ext. P-2 Electoral Roll. The Petitioner submitted Ext. P-3 nomination, in conformity with Ext. P-l notification on the stipulated date i.e., 17-12-2010, on which date itself, scrutiny was conducted, as notified and the list of validly nominated candidates was published as borne by Ext. P-4. Obviously, the Petitioner's name was excluded in Ext. P-4 having rejected the nomination for the reason that, it was not in conformity with the Statute No. 29 and the Petitioner had not given the declaration that he was 'not a Member of the Senate', but for showing that he was not a member of Academic Council. The Petitioner challenges the said act on many a ground, contending that, after demanding the nomination to be submitted in the particular manner as stipulated in Ext. P-1 notification, (which specifically necessitated to give a declaration as 'not a member of the Academic Council' in the appropriate place), it was never open to the Returning Officer to have rejected the nomination referring to something else as not contained in the Notification.