SATISH CHANDER SHARMA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Satish Chander Sharma has filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the University of Rajasthan and 8 others to challenge the election of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 Shri L. L. Joshi and Shri surendra Prasad Vyas to the Syndicate of the said University and has prayed that by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction the declaration of the result of the election of two non-teacher members to the syndicate, that is, the election of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 be quashed and that a writ of quo warranto or any other suitable writ, order or direction be issued declaring respondents Nos. 6 and 7 as not entitled to hold the office of the membership of the Syndicate.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in a nutshell is as follows :-Petitioner is a registered graduate of the University of Rajasthan and that his name has been entered in the electoral roll of registered graduates of the University at item No. 763. On 6th of August, 1969, the registrar of the University sent a notice to the members of the Syndicate announcing that the term of the two non-teacher members of the syndicate viz. , (1) Shri Dinesh Chandra Swami and (2) Shri Kailash chandra Bakliwal elected from amongst the members of the Senate shall expire on 8th October, 1969, and, therefore, he called upon the Senate to elect the two non-teacher members to the Syndicate, and for that purpose he asked the members of the Senate to send their proposals to him by 25th of August, 1969. Consequent to the said notice (Annexure 1), the names of the six candidates, namely, of respondents Nos. 3 to 8 were proposed and their nomination forms were submitted to the registrar by 25th of August, 1969. The scrutiny of the nomination papers was held on 26th of August, 1969 and it is said that all the nomination papers were found to be valid, It is alleged that the nomination paper of Shri N. N. Gidwani respondent No. 3, who happened to be the Librarian of the University, was referred to the Vice-Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor held that the respondent No. 3 was not entitled to contest the election to the Syndicate as he was an employee of the university. Thereafter, the voting papers were prepared wherein the names of respondents Nos. 4 to 8 were entered as the contesting candidates. These voting papers were sent to the members of the senate along with a circular letter wherein directions were issued that the voting papers may be returned to the Registrar in accordance with the instructions which were enclosed along with the voting papers. It is further alleged that the voting papers were duly submitted by the voters in the office of the Registrar of the University and the same were opened by Shri J. N. Mathur, the Deputy Registrar on 8th of October, 1969, and after counting the ame he declared the result that respondents Nos. 6 and 7 were returned to the syndicate. This election has been challenged by the petitioner, inter aha, on the grounds that the nomination paper of Shri N. N. Gidwani was wrongly rejected by the Vice-Chancellor and the non-inclusion of the name of Shri N. N. Gidwani in the voting paper vitiated the result of the election; that the voting paper of Shri G. C. Chatterji which was not duly attested by the attesting authority was wrongly counted; that the counting was done by the Deputy Registrar who was not authorised under the ordinance to count the voting papers; and that the counting was not properly done. It was also alleged that after the nomination paper of Shri n. N. Gidwani was rejected by the Vice-Chancellor, the Syndicate of the University held a meeting on 27th of September, 1969 and enacted a new Ordinance 384-B laying down that a non-teacher employee of the University or its affiliated colleges/approved institutions shall not seek elections to the Senate or any other authority or body of the University. It is contended that the Syndicate was not authorised to make such an ordinance laying down qualifications for the candidates to seek election as non-teacher members to the Syndicate because it runs contra to the provisions of Section 21 (vi) of the University of Rajputana Act, 1946, as amended from time to time (hereinafter called the Act), It is, therefore, prayed that Ordinance 384-B which was beyond the competence of the Syndicate be declared void and it may also be quashed.

(3.) A reply has been filed on behalf of the University of Rajasthan and the Registrar of the University. The other respondents who were impleaded by the petitioner as respondents, however, did not choose to file any reply to the writ petition.