SHIVAJI RAMCHANDRA MORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are members of the senate of Shivaji University, Kolhapur, elected from the registered graduates constituency. The petitioner No. 4 is also a member of the senate elected from the Teachers Constituency. In this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the Maharashtra Ordinance No. 1 of 1988 issued by the Governor of Maharashtra, called the Maharashtra Universities (Amendment) Ordinance, 1988, which came into force on 12th February, 1988. This Ordinance aims to prohibit persons who have already served for two terms or more or for 6 years in aggregate, whichever is less, from continuing as members and contesting the elections to various bodies of the concerned University. The said provision is challenged on the ground that it is violative of the petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and is also issued in colourable and mala fide exercise of powers.

(2.) Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended before us that section 77 of the Shivaji University Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in terms confers powers upon the Chancellor to annul, suspend or modify any Resolution or proceeding of any officer or authority or the University, which, in his opinion is not in conformity with the Act or Statute, or Ordinance or Regulations. The decision of the Chancellor in this behalf is final. The Chancellor of the University was never called upon to use the said power till this day. Therefore, there was no warrant for promulgating the present Ordinance. It is also contended by him that the disqualification prescribed is wholly unwarranted and arbitrary and affects the autonomy of the University. It creates an absurd position by practically debarring about 90% of the elected members from seeking re-election or from continuing as members of the various authorities of the University. The word term used in the Ordinance is not defined nor it is uniform. Therefore, restrictions of 2 terms or 6 years, whichever is less, is artificial and discriminatory. Though by Clause 9 of the Ordinance a person continues to hold the office till completion of his term, he is not eligible to be elected, nominated, appointed, co-opted or in any manner become member of the Executive Council. The petitioners Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 were members of the senate but were never members of the Executive Council. However, the impugned Ordinance deprives them of their right to contest the election to the Executive Council. In substance therefore, it is contended by Shri Agrawal that the provisions of this Ordinance are ultra vires Articles 14 of the Constitution of India being prohibitive, arbitrary and discriminatory.

(3.) On the other hand in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, it is contended that complaints were received by the Government that since there is no restriction on the time limit for holding the office or post in the University, the whole academic atmosphere is getting polluted. The persons in office have also developed vested interest in the functioning of the University and therefore, it was in the public interest to issue such an ordinance. To the similar effect is the affidavit filed by the Shivaji University.