MOHAMED HANEEFA. K Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, a Professor in the Department of Library and Information Science, University of Calicut, is also a member of the Senate of the University of Calicut, whose name is included in the Electoral Roll of the Senate members published by the Returning Officer for the election to the Syndicate. The challenge is against the orders passed by the Chancellor insofar as it permitted the 6th and 7th respondents, nominated members of the Senate, whose nominations were rejected by the 5th respondent returning officer. Earlier, this Court had, by Ext.P3 judgment dtd. 6/12/2023 in W.P(C) No.31993/2023, directed the University, including its Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor, to complete all procedural formalities for the conduct of the election to the Syndicate. The petitioner submits that the election was delayed as the Chancellor delayed the nomination of "other members" to the Senate under Sec. 17(1) to (3) of the Calicut University Act, 1975 (for short, 'the Act') and the nominations made by the Chancellor is under challenge in W.P(C) No.39633/2023. He points out that the procedural formalities for the conduct of the election of members to the Syndicate were completed, and by Ext.P4, the Returning Officer published notification for the election of 12 members (out of 13 members under Sec. 21(a) and one member under sub-sec. (b) of Sec. 21 under "Other Members") of the Act, by members of the Senate from among themselves to the Syndicate of the University of Calicut. He submits that pursuant to Ext.P4 election notification, the 5th respondent had published the proceedings of the scrutiny of nominations, which is marked as Ext.P5. The nominations of respondents 6 and 7 were rejected.

(2.) The petitioner contends that the same had to be challenged by filing an election petition as per Statute 29 of the Calicut University Act, 1975. Instead, they chose to file petitions before the Chancellor after their complaint against the rejection to the Vice Chancellor evoked no response. The Chancellor, acting on the complaints of respondents 6 and 7, passed Exts.P11 and P12, staying all further proceedings to the election of the Syndicate, holding that respondents 6 and 7 are teachers who are entitled to contest the election and, therefore, to examine the said issue, further proceedings of the election was stayed. The petitioner submits that the said action of the Chancellor is totally without jurisdiction and that once the election has been notified, the same could not have been stalled by the Chancellor. It is also argued that the power under Sec. 7 of the Act or Statute could not have been invoked in the instant case and thus prayed for an order to quash Exts.P11 and P12.

(3.) The University has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1, 3 and 5, which was sworn to by the Registrar of the University, pointing out that a person nominated/elected can contest the election to the Syndicate only from the source to/from which he was inducted in the Senate and since under Sec. 21(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) a separate constituency is provided for election to the teachers of the University, only those persons elected as Teacher of the University in the Senate can contest election to the Syndicate. In other words, the nominated members, like respondents 6 and 7, do not have any independent source to contest. In the constituency earmarked for teachers, only those who are elected as teachers can contest. It is also pointed out that as far as a rejection of the nomination of a candidate is concerned, only an election petition will lie in the manner set out in the Statute and that the Chancellor, being only an officer of the University and a creature of the Statute, his powers are those granted by the relevant provisions of the Act or Statutes.