LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-417

PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY NON-TEACHING Vs. PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY

Decided On January 03, 2019
Pondicherry University Non-Teaching Appellant
V/S
PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for the petitioner association submitted that there cannot be any denial or rebuttal on the part of the first respondent University or equally on the part of the second respondent and other members to face the elections for the purpose of electing the office bearers, as per the bye-laws. Therefore, if the University comes forward to prepare the latest eligible voters' list as per the bye-laws, no one shall have any grievance.

(2.) Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 17, filing a detailed counter affidavit, opposing the prayer, submitted that the petitioner cannot come to this Court to agitate any dispute relating to the election of office bearers of the association. He has also submitted that the petitioner cannot even maintain the writ petition, since the Executive Council passed a resolution to suspend Mr.M.Pannirselvame and the order of suspension was also sent to him by post on 10.6.2016, which has not been till date questioned. Hence the claim of the petitioner, as if he is the President of the association, is devoid of any merit. However, Mr.Balan Haridas finally stated that the respondents 2 to 17 have no hesitation to take part in the election process, as they are prepared to elect their office bearers, so as to negotiate with the respondent University.

(3.) Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, learned counsel for the respondent University urged this Court to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that since there has been a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 17 as to whether the bye-laws and the CCS(RSA) Rules will apply or not, this is a matter to be decided only by a competent civil Court and not by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the learned counsel for the respondent University submitted that since a new Vice-Chancellor has taken over charge, the apprehension made by the petitioner is untenable, as he will ensure to hold the fresh elections in the manner known to law.