VIJAYSINGH B DODIA Vs. SAURASHTRA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises an important and interesting question of interpretation of the provisions of the Saurashtra University Act, 1965 particularly the provisions of S.25(2) thereof, viz., whether the Dean of a Faculty, who has held the office for two successive terms of 3 years each becomes ineligible for reelection for the third term. Section 25 reads as under :-

(2.) The petitioner was elected as the Dean of Medical Faculty of Saurashtra University with effect from May 23, 1991. The said first term came to an end on May 22, 1994. The petitioner was elected as the Dean of Medical Faculty for a further term of three years from May 23, 1994 to May 22, 1997. The petitioner is an elected member of the Senate of the Saurashtra University and the said term is going to expire on May 22, 2002. The elections to the post of Dean of a Faculty are being held from amongst Senate members. The petitioner is, therefore, desirous of contesting for the post of Dean of Medical Faculty for the third consecutive term also. However, in response to the petitioner's letter dated January 15, 1997, the respondent-University submitted a reply that the petitioner is not eligible for reelection for the third term in view of the provisions of S.25(2) of the Saurashtra University Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In view of the above stand of the respondent-University, the petitioner has filed the present petition for an appropriate writ or direction to restrain, the respondent-University from preventing the petitioner from contesting the election for the post of Dean, Medical Faculty of Saurashtra University on the ground that the petitioner has already held the office of the Dean for two terms and that the petitioner cannot contest the election hereafter. The petitioner has further prayed for a declaration that the interpretation placed by the University on the provisions of S.25(2) of the Act as per the letter at Annexure "B" to the petition is illegal and unconstitutional.

(3.) In response to the notice, learned Counsel Mr. J. R. Nanavati appeared for the respondent-University. Since elections for the aforesaid post are not held in view of pendency of this petition, at the request of the learned Counsels for the parties, the petition has been taken up for final disposal and is being disposed of by this judgment.