SHAMSUDDIN Vs. KERALA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a member of the Senate of the University of Kerala when elections were held to the Syndicate of the University on September 4, 1984. The petitioner contested as a candidate for election by the Senate from among themselves, for one of the six seats falling in the non teachers category in S.21(a)(i) of the Kerala University Act, 1974 (the Act, for short). He was declared not elected. He filed an election petition before the Chancellor on October 1, 1984. The Chancellor allowed the petition on April 5, 1986 and ordered re-counting in the manner indicated in the order. The Chancellor's order was challenged by writ petition O.P.No.2725 of 1986 in this court which was dismissed on May 25, 1987. The Writ Appeals therefrom were also dismissed. Special Leave Petition No.7119 of 1987 was filed in the Supreme Court, which again met with dismissal on July 16, 1987. Thereafter the votes were recounted and the petitioner was declared elected by the notification Ext. P2 dated July 22, 1987. The petitioner thus became a member of the Syndicate.

(2.) The next elections to the Senate, on the expiry of its Tour year term, took place in 1988. The petitioner was again elected to the Senate. The University issued notification under Statute 34 of the Kerala University (Conduct of Elections to the Various Authorities or Bodies) First Statutes, 1974 (the Statutes, for short) notifying elections to the Syndicate to fill up, inter alia, the six seats falling under S.21(a)(i). Petitioner demurred to the election with the plea that he continued to be a member of the Syndicate under S.22, which prescribed the term of a member of the Syndicate as four years from the date of the "election". Petitioner was elected only on July 22, 1987 when the notification Ext. P2 was issued after the recount and therefore he could continue till July 22, 1991, as he had been elected to the Senate meanwhile. He made a representation accordingly to the Vice Chancellor, but that was rejected by the communication Ext. P5. It was stated that in the context of "the procedure for election", it could not be said that persons elected will hold office for a term of four years starting from different periods in accordance with the dates of declaration of the election results. "Election" in S.22(1) means only the process of choosing, and therefore the four years term should commence from the date on which the election was held. Reference was made to S.43 in support.

(3.) Petitioner's case is that his election had been notified only by Ext. P2 on July 22, 1987 and therefore he can continue till July 22, 1991. The Syndicate is a perpetual body without any limit of term, unlike the Senate, whose term is only four years. Therefore there can be different periods during which different members of the Syndicate could be members.