BINOD PRASAD SINGH SON OF SHRI KALIKA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent -authorities of the B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University to declare the result of election for teacher members of Syndicate held on 25.9.2003. Subsequently, by way of amendment which was allowed, the petitioner has also prayed to quash the letters dated 10.7.2007 and 27.9.2007 by which the Chancellor of Universities has directed for holding fresh elections of the members of the Syndicate under Section 22(1)(h) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and the further memo dated 21.10.2008 issued by the Registrar -cum - Returning Officer of the University by which he has issued election communiquà ((THELAW)) for holding fresh election of the Syndicate from the Professors/Readers category of teachers under the said Section. The short facts of this case are that a communiquà ((THELAW)) dated 5.9.2003 was issued by the Registrar of the University notifying the programme for election to the Syndicate by the Senate of the University under Section 22 of the Bihar State Universities Act. The petitioner filed his nomination paper as one of the candidate for the post from Teacher category of members from amongst Professors and Readers other than University Head under Section 22(1)(h) of the Act. The election was held on 25.9.2003. It is contended by the petitioner that after the conclusion of the counting of votes, a fax message dated 24.9.2003 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Governor 's Secretariat was received in the election hall by which it was communicated that the Chancellor has been pleased to order to withhold the declaration of result of the election. Although it is submitted that the counting was over and, the candidates knew about the result, but on account of the said order of the Chancellor the result was not declared officially.

(2.) The said interim order of the Chancellor was passed on the representation filed by one Dr. Padmasha Jha in which she had complained that her name was illegally omitted from the list of voters. Ultimately by order dated 8.11.2003, the Chancellor directed the University to announce the result of the election of the members of Syndicate under Section 22(h) of the Act by excluding the vote of Dean Student Welfare and Proctor.

(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid order of the Chancellor the petitioner filed CWJC No. 13294 of 2003 before this Court which was dismissed by the order dated 24.8.2004; however, with respect to the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Chancellor to declare the result excluding the votes of Dean Students Welfare and Proctor is not possible to be given effect to since their votes cannot be identified, it was observed by this Court that guidelines had been sought by the Registrar of the University from the Chancellor and the Chancellor has to take a decision on the said issue and thus no interference was called for by the Court at that stage. In LPA No. 984/2004 filed by the petitioner it was observed that no case for interference is made out and with the expectation that the Chancellor will dispose of the matter expeditiously, the appeal was disposed of. Thereafter by his order dated 13.10.2004, the Chancellor directed the Registrar - cum -Returning Officer to open the seal cover and count the votes and if the votes secured by all the winning candidates was more than two votes then the said result shall be final but even if one among the winning candidates secured two or less than two, then as it would be a case in which legality and illegality are not severable the Registrar shall take a fresh poll, by not allowing the aforesaid two persons to vote and declare the result. It was further made clear in the said order that the same voters ' list on which the election was held earlier shall be the voter list in the event fresh polling becomes necessary.