DIPAK KUMAR PARIJA Vs. CHANCELLORUTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ application is to the order dated 21-6-1982 (Annexure 2) passed by the Chancellor of Utkal University cancelling the election of the petitioner to the Syndicate and directing fresh election under Section 10 (1) (g) of the Utkal University Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner works as a Laboratory Assistant in the Department of Psychology in Buxi Jagabandhu College, Bhubaneswar. He is a member of the Senate of Utkal University having been elected from the Registered Graduates' Constituency under Section 9 (1) (p) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the Registrar of Utkal University, opposite party No. 2, invited nominations for election to the Syndicate under Section 10 (1) (g) of the Act from amongst the members of the Senate and accordingly he filed his nomination along with other candidates. On 27-2-1982 opposite party No. 2 scrutinised the nominations and declared, the nominations of the petitioners and one Arun Patnaik as valid. The election to the Syndicate was held on 26-3-1982 at an open meeting and the petitioner was duly elected by the Senate having secured the largest number of votes. Thereafter opposite parties 3, 4 and 5 applied to the Chancellor for cancellation of the petitioner's election to the Syndicate on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to contest. The Chancellor gave notice to the petitioner and the opposite parties and after hearing them passed orders on 21-6-1982 cancelling the election of the petitioner on the ground that the latter was connected with a college and as such was not eligible to contest at the election. The petitioner asserts that the order of the Chancellor declaring his election invalid and directing fresh election was without jurisdiction, illegal and void. It is further stated that the statutory expression--"not in any way connected with the University or with any college", actually means not connected with teaching in the University or in any college and that any other interpretation would disqualify all the members of the Senate to contest. The petitioner has accordingly prayed that the order as per Annexure 2 should be set aside,

(2.) In the return filed on behalf of the Chancellor, opposite party No. 1, it is stated that admittedly the petitioner is directly connected with a college and therefore he was not eligible to contest. It is further stated that the order of the Chancellor as per Annexure 2 is valid and) proper being in accordance with the statutory provision contained in Section 10 (1) (g) of the Act. It is explained that the object of the aforesaid statutory provision is to make the composition of the Syndicate broad-based so that the Syndicate comprises of persons connected with the University and colleges as well as persons not connected with the University or any of the colleges. It is reiterated that the petitioner was ineligible to be elected from the Senate and therefore could not claim any right in his favour merely because the Registrar had declared him eligible to contest and he had succeeded at the election.

(3.) In his counter opposite party No. 2 has narrated the facts beginning with the receipt of nominations for election to the Syndicate and ending with the order of the Chancellor as per Annexure 2. Opposite Party No. 3 who is an elected member of the Senate has filed a separate counter in which he has opposed the writ application on the ground that the action and order of the Chancellor cancelling the election of the petitioner and directing fresh election are valid and proper and are based on correct interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.