ABDUL SALAM Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The rights and liberties of the petitioner to be included in the Electoral roll for participating in the election and voting in respect of the constituency of 'Principals' to have representation in the 'Senate' of the respondent University is the subject matter of challenge. The petitioner is the 'Principal' of MES College of Engineering, Kuttippuram, which is a Self Financing Institution affiliated to the respondent University. The third respondent, who is the Returning Officer to conduct election had issued Ext.P1 notification dated 5.10.2012 for conducting the election.

(2.) The petitioner was however not given any nomination form, for the reason that his name was not there in the Electoral roll. On enquiry, the petitioner was given to understand that, non-inclusion was for the reason that, he happened to be the Principal of a 'Self Financing College' whose appointment was approved by the University, as there was no need, necessity or occasion for the University to have the appointment approved. Reference is made to definition of the term Teacher' as given under S. 2(27) of the Calicut University Act, 1975, to contend that, it very much takes in 'Principal' as well, as defined under S. 2(15) of the Act. Met with the situation, the petitioner preferred Exts.P2 and P3 representations pointing out that, the Statute does not draw any distinction between the Principals of 'Aided' colleges and 'Unaided' colleges and that the petitioner was having every right to be included in the Electoral roll and to contest the election in respect of the particular constituency of 'Principals'.

(3.) The representations preferred by the petitioner were not considered, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 25199/2012. It was disposed of, vide Ext.P4 judgment, observing that, the election was already postponed as submitted across the Bar and in the said circumstance, the petitioner's representations also could be caused to be considered. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: