DR. K.L. JAURA Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY, ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is a Reader in the Chemistry Department of the Punjab University, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'), while Respondent No. 4 is a Lecturer in the Department of Botany of the University. The University is a body corporate under the Punjab University Act, 1847. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Under Section 8 of the Act, Senate is the supreme authority of the University which consists of besides others, the Ordinary Fellows to be elected under Section 13 of the Act and in accordance with the regulations framed by the University under Section 31 of the Act. Two ordinary Follows are elected by the Readers and Lecturers on the staff of the teaching Departments of the University from amongst themselves under Clause (c) of Sub -section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. The elections to the Senate were held on September 12, 1972, and the Petitioner and Shri Vishwa Nath Tewari were declared elected under Regulation 20 of Chapter 11(B) of the Punjab University Calendar, 1972, Volume I (hereinafter referred to as 'the Calendar'). Shri S.P. Choda, Respondent No. 4, who had contested against the Petitioner and had lost, filed an election petition under Regulation 17 of the Regulations contained in Chapter 11(B) of the Calendar before the Committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor, Mr. Narinder Singh and Mr. G.L. Chopra. In that petition, objection had been taken only to the mode of counting of the votes and no other allegation of corrupt practices or any illegality had been made against the Petitioner. He received a letter on October 31, 1972 (copy Annexure 'A') from the Registrar of the University whereby he was informed that the approval of his election as an Ordinary Fellow had been kept in abeyance under the orders of the Chancellor till the Committee had decided the election petition. The Petitioner wrote a letter to the Registrar of the University on November 11, 1972, for the supply of the copy of the order of the Chancellor to enable him to approach this Court but he (the Registrar), - -vide his letter dated November 14, 1972, informed him that he had nothing more to add to what had already been stated in the letter dated October 31, 1972. The object of the letter (Annexure 'A') was to prevent the Petitioner from being assigned to any of the Faculties and thereafter to prevent him from being elected to the Syndicate. The proceedings before the Election Committee and the order of the Chancellor have been challenged by the writ -Petitioner on the ground that they are illegal, void, without jurisdiction and mala fide.

(2.) THE Respondents have contested the petition and denied the allegations of the Petitioner.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the argument, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations, which are as follows: