RAJEEVAN.K.K Vs. THE VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in the above writ petitions is as to whether the scheduling of election to the one vacancy which occurred in the Syndicate of the respondent University on 16.04.2016; be filled up, when the Electorate, being the Senate, is not filled up to its full contingent.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the University has scheduled the elections in haste, especially when the State has just passed the threshold of the elections to the Legislative Assembly and the vacancies occurred of the representatives from the Local Self Government Institutions, are remaining as such; despite the elections to the local bodies being over more than an year back. The petitioners contend that the haste displayed by the University would lead to illegality and arbitrariness insofar as the democratic process being frustrated for reason of the Senate being only comprised of 2/3rd of its strength.

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel for the University, however, would seek to sustain the conduct of the elections. As a preliminary issue the maintainability is challenged on grounds, which apply differently to the petitioners herein; both of whom are Senate members and one a candidate in the present election. W.P.(C) No.18557/2016 is filed by a person who can only be deemed to be a wayfarer and the writ petition filed against the election scheduled; if at all, can only be treated as a Public Interest Litigation, especially since the petitioner is not a candidate. With respect to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19309/2016, it is submitted that he participated in the entire procedure, gave his nomination, did not withdraw it in the time provided and after the procedure had advanced considerably, turned around and challenged the election on the ground raised in W.P.(C) No.18557/2016 itself, for obvious reasons.