AJAY NANALAL SONI Vs. P PANEERVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Ms. Trusha Patel learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the State authority in SCA Nos. 3304 to 3309 of 2008, Mr. Shivang Shukla learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the State authority in SCA No. 3310 to 3314 of 2008 and SCA No. 3015 of 2008, Mr. Shelat with Ms. Nanavati learned Counsel waives service of notice of rule for No. 2, and Mr. Parikh learned Counsel waives service of notice of rule for the University and its officers. The matters are finally heard.

(2.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that on 24. 10. 2005, notification was published for holding the election of various constituency/category comprising of the university. The University in the present case is Gujarat University. As per the election programme, the last date for submission of the nomination form was 29. 10. 2005, and the election was scheduled to be held on 27. 10. 2005. The respondent no. 4-private party wanted to contest election, however he was at the relevant point of time in USA, therefore he sent his nomination form and as the nomination form was not personally tendered, the same was not accepted. The private respondent shri Thakkar challenged the said action by preferring SCA No. 22738 of 2005, and the said SCA was initially admitted, and the further action was made subject to the result of the petition. However, thereafter, in view of the provisions of the Section 54 of the gujarat University Act (hereinafter referred as to the 'act') providing the remedy of deciding the election dispute, this Court directed the State Government to decide the matter treating the petition, as if the election dispute raised against the non-acceptance of the nomination form. The pertinent aspect is that in the very petition, the petitioner therein who is private respondent herein, moved the application for amendment for joining 34 persons as party respondents, who were declared elected in teacher constituency, but as the main SCA was disposed of as per the above referred order, this Court did not pass any order on such application for amendment. It appears that the State Government thereafter, considered the matter on 23. 10. 2007. The order came to be passed by the State Government whereby the action of the University of not accepting the nomination form of Shri thakkar was found improper and therefore, appeal/application of Shri Thakkar was accepted, and the decision of the University of rejecting nomination form was set aside, and it was further observed that if the elections are held of the senate, the same are also set aside. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached to this Court, by preferring petitions.

(3.) THE pertinent aspect is that before the state Government nobody remained present on behalf of the University for contesting the petition. The further development is that based on the order passed by the State government dated 23. 11. 2007, the university after getting legal opinion, vide order dated 8. 2. 2008 declared the election of whole teacher constituency comprising of 42 posts in the senate as illegal. Therefore, the petitioners have also consequently challenged the said decision of the University, acting upon the decision of the State Government for setting aside the election.