AJOY KUMAR JAGADEV MOHAPATRA Vs. SAILA BEHARI CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution raise common questions of law, are heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) O . J. C. No. 211 of 1956, filed on 4 -4 -56, is an application by the petitioners for issue of a Writ in the nature of quo warranto against opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 who have been elected as Fellows of the Utkal University from the registered graduates constituency, the result of which has been published under notification No. A. A/C -25343 -(S. E.) /55 dated the 22nd February 1956 in Orissa Gazette dated 9 -3 -1956 under the authority of opposite party No. 4, the Vice -chancellor Utkal University as the returning officer, as opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 have no valid authority to hold the office of the Fellows of the Utkal University and for issue of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus against opposite party Nos. 4 and 5, the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar respectively of the Utkal University for quashing the election of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3.

(3.) THE two petitioners in O. J. C. No. 211 of 1956 are registered graduates of the Utkal University within the meaning of the Utkal University Act (Orissa Act No. XIII of 1943). Opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 have been elected as Fellows of the Utkal University from the registered graduates constituency, the election having been notified in the Orissa Gazette on the 9th March 1956. The petitioners allege that the notification Intimating the registered graduates to elect four representatives was issued by the Registrar of the Utkal University on the 6th February 1866, beingNotification No. A. A/C -22731 -(S.E.)/55 which is annexure A to the application along with a Ballot paper which is annexure B. In para. 3 of Annexure A, condition (II) is as follows: 'One at least should be a person belonging to the Affiliated (merged) States'. In pursuance of the said notification, opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 have been elected as Fellows of the Utkal University. The petitioner made a representation to the chancellor of the Utkal University contending that the reservation in the registered graduates constituency in favour of persons belonging to the Affiliated (merged) States is discriminatory and the aforesaid representation was received at the Chancellor's office on 5 -12 -55, a copy of which is Annexure C. Subsequently a reply was received from the Chancellor's office that the representation has been sent to the vice -chancellor for necessary action, but no further intimation was received either from the Vice -chancellor or the Chancellor and the elections were held in spite of the aforesaid objection. The petitioners also allege that under Section 8(3) (iv) of the Utkal University Act, fourteen registered graduates are to be elected from and by the registered graduates of the Province of Orissa and of the merged territories, provided that at least four of such fourteen registered graduates shall be representatives of the merged territories, and in the statute made under the Act in Law 9 (3) (d) it is also provided in similar terms. The petitioners state that though a provision for representation from the Affiliated States is made, no test is laid therein as to who will represent the Affiliated States and that it is nowwhere stated in either of them that the representatives of the Affiliated States must be persons belonging to the Affiliated (merged) States. Consequently according to the petitioners, the notification issued by opposite party No. 5 the Registrar is ultra vires of the Utkal University Act and the Statutes made thereunder. The petitioners also submit that the reservation of seats in favour of persons belonging to the merged territories in the registered graduates constituency is hit by the Constitutional inhibition under Article 14 o the Constitution and that as the constituency is a constituency of graduates of the University, there cannot be any reasonable classification on territorial basis as amongst the registered graduates and that the reservation of such seats in favour of persons belonging to the affiliated states has vitiated the entire election in consequence of. which the elections of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 are not in accordance with law and they are not entitled to the office of the Fellows of the University.