JOSHI MULSHANKER SOMNATH Vs. GUJARAT AYURVED UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Assistant Professor in the Sarkari Akhandanand Ayurvedic Mahavidyalaya Ahmedabad which is a college affiliated to the Gujarat Ayurved University which is the first respondent before us. The second respondent is the Vice-Chancellor and the third respondent is the Registrar of the first respondent University. The first respondent University is constituted under the Gujarat Ayurved University Act 1965 Sec. 14 of the Gujarat Ayurved University Act provides inter alia that the Senate shall be one of the authorities of the first respondent University. The constitution of the Senate is provided in sec. 15 of the Gujarat Ayurved University Act 1965 The members of the Senate consists of two classes namely Class I and Class II. Class I Consists of ex-officio members while Class H consists of ordinary members. There are several categories of ordinary members. One category consists of five members to be elected by the teachers of affiliated colleges excluding the Principals thereof from amongst themselves in the manner prescribed by the statutes. The election of the Senate was decided to be held on 24th September 1972. The last date for filing nomination papers was 9th September 1972. The petitioner who is a teacher in an affiliated college was nominated as a candidate for the election from the constituency of teachers of affiliated colleges. There were two nomination papers filed nominating the petitioner as a candidate. The first nomination paper was filed on 19th August 1972 while the second nomination paper was filed on 5th September 1972. Both the nomination papers were in the prescribed form and they were filed before the last date for receiving nomination papers. The third respondent who was the scrutinising officer felt a doubt as to the validity of the nomination of the petitioner since both the nomination papers mentioned the date at the foot thereof but they were not dated by the voters proposing and seconding the petitioner. He therefore referred the matter to the second respondent as the Vice-Chancellor of the first respondent University. The second respondent rejected the nomination of the petitioner on the ground that the nomination papers were not dated by the voters proposing and seconding the petitioner and therefore they were not in accordance with Statute 117 which required that the nomination papers should be dated and signed by two voters. The petitioner thereupon preferred the present petition challenging the validity of the rejection of his nomination by the second respondent

(2.) The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the nomination papers submitted on behalf of the petitioner were in conformity with the requirements of Statute 117. Statute 117 reads as follows :-

(3.) We are therefore of the view that on a proper construction of Statute 117 read with the prescribed form it is not necessary that the nomination papers should be dated by the proposer and the seconder and it is sufficient if they are signed by the proposer and the seconder and they bear a date at the foot thereof as shown in the printed form. It is common ground between the parties in the present case that the nomination papers were strictly in the prescribed form they were signed by the proposer and the seconder and they bear a date at the bottom against the column date in the prescribed form. The second respondent was therefore clearly in error in rejecting the nomination of the petitioner.