DHARAMPAL BHATIA Vs. B K MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Shri Dharampal Bhatia desired to contest the election of the members of the Court of the Jabalpur University. His nomination paper having been rejected by the Scrutiny Officer on the ground that the names of his proposer and seconder were not mentioned in the nomination form, he has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the relief that the order of rejection of the nomination paper dated 28 -3 -1970 may be quashed and that the respondents may be commanded to include his name in the ballot paper.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the petitioner is a registered graduate of the Jabalpur University. His serial number in the list of registered graduates is 672. The nomination paper shows that he was proposed as a candidate by two registered graduates whose numbers in the list of graduates were 167 and 169. At No. 167 in the list of registered graduates, there is written the name of Kumari Rama Gupta. At No. 169 the name of the registered graduate is written as Har Sewaklal Khaskalam. In the nomination paper there is a column for writing name and number of proposer and another column for writing the name and number of the seconder. In the first column only No. 167 was mentioned and in the second column only No. 169 was specified. The nomination paper bears signatures opposite the column of proposer which read as "Rama Gupta" and against the column of the seconder which read as "H. L. Khaskalam". As already stated, as the names of the proposer and seconder were not written in these columns, the nomination paper was rejected. Section 22 of the Jabalpur University Act, 1956 (herein -after called the Act) provides for the constitution of Court. In clause (xxi) it provides for the election of twenty representatives to be elected by the registered graduates of the University from amongst themselves, in accordance with such mode as may be prescribed by the Ordinances. The Ordinance applicable is Ordinance No. 4. It provides for the election of registered graduates to the Court. The following are its material clauses :

(3.) THE first contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that it was not necessary for him to comply with the requirements of Form A mentioned in Ordinance No. 4 (III) (i) and to mention the names of the proposer and seconder in his nomination paper as that form has not been reproduced in the University Calender and cannot be accepted to be a part of Ordinance No. 4. In the return it has been pointed out that Ordinance No. 4 together with Forms A, B and C prescribed thereunder along with some other Ordinances were drawn up and sent to the Chancellor of the University according to the provisions of section 40 of the Act and by the communication dated 11th October 1957 the Chancellor directed all those Ordinances, namely, Nos. 1 to 10, to come into force from 15th October 1957. Annexure R/4 shows that Ordinances 1 to 10 framed by the Committee appointed under section 40 of the Act were sent to the Chancellor by the Vice -Chancellor and the Chancellor directed the first Orninances 1 to 10 to come into operation from 15th October 1957. THE mere fact that Form A was not published in the University Calender is not sufficient to enable us to conclude that it did not form part of Ordinance No. 4 particularly when recourse was had to the same Form A in all previous elections to the University Court. This contention of the petitioner is, therefore, rejected.