RAMESHCHANDRA Vs. G N TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to the presentation of this petition by Rameshchandra Bahoti may be briefly stated thus. The petitioner is admittedly a registered graduate of the University of Indore. He passed his M. Com. Degree Examination in the year 1967. In that very year, Shri Vaishnav Arts and Commerce College. Indore, also called as Shri Vaishnav College of Commerce, was started at Indore in the month of August. The petitioner received a let-ter (Annexure A) from the Joint Secretary of the said College in which it was requested that he may at his convenience and according to his aptitude deliver some lectures to the students of that college. By his reply dated 3rd August, 1967 (also marked Annexure A) the petitioner accepted the said offer in these words:

(2.) ANNEXURE R-2 filed with the return on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the registrar of the University of Indore and the University of Indore, shows that the petitioner is the senior-most Honorary Lecturer in the said College and he has been teaching the subject of Business Administration from the month of Au-gust 1967 in the Shri Vaishnav College of Commerce, Indore. The particulars regarding seniority of members of the staff given in Annexure R-2 clearly mention the petitioner as 'honorary Lecturer'. Under the Indore University Registered graduates (Elections to the Court) Ordinance, 1965 (hereinafter called the ordinance) Registrar of the University conducts the said elections. The programme of elections to the court of the University was duly published under Clause 5 of the ordinance and is Annexure B on record. In accordance with the said programme, the petitioner who was desirous of contesting the election to the University Court as a representative to be elected by the Registered Graduates of the University from among themselves under Clause (21) to Section 19 (1) of the Indore university Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act) submitted his nomination paper duly proposed and seconded as required by the relevant provisions of the ordinance. The nomination papers submitted by the various candidates were scrutinized by the first respondent on 28-2-1972. The nomination papers of respondents Nos. 3 to 25 were accepted but the nomination paper of the petitioner as also the nomination papers of respondents 26 to 28 were rejected. Thus, respondents 3 to 25 remained as the contesting candidates at the said election.

(3.) THE nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent on the basis of the explanation to Section 19 (1) of the Act. The said Explanation reads thus: