GOVIND RAM Vs. JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered graduate of the University of Jodhpur and is serving in the University as Upper Division Clerk. The election to the Senate of the University of Jodhpur from the registered graduates constituency was held in the year 1988. The petitioner alongwith one Mr. Banshi Dhar Purohit contested the election and was declared elected as a Member of the Senate of the University of Jodhpur, for a period of five years under Clause XXIII Sub -division III of Sub -section (2) of Section 15 of the Jodhpur University Act vide Notification dated June 13, 1988, issued by the Registrar of the University of Jodhpur. The petitioner represented as a Member of the Graduates Constituency in the Senate. Certain amendments were made in the Jodhpur University Act, 1962 by the Act No. 1 of 1992. By this amendment, the name of the University of Jodhpur was changed to Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur. Cartain other provisions were, also, amended. Clause XXIII of Sub -Division III of Sub -section (2) of Section 15 of the Act was, also, amended and a anew Clause was substituted in place of the old Clause XXIII. By this amendment, persons in the service of the University or College or connected with the management of an affiliated college or a recognised Hall or Hostel were disqualified for being elected as a Member of the Senate from the Registered Graduates Constituency. This amendment came into force with effect from 3.7.92. After the amendment in Clause XXIII of Sub -Division III of Sub -section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, the Registrar of the University wrote a letter on July 13, 1992, to the petitioner that as he was in the service of the University and, therefore, in view of the amendment made in Section 15(P2)(xxiii) of the Act, he cannot continue beyond March 3, 1992, as a Member of the Senate and, therefore, the notice alongwith Agenda sent to him for attending the meeting on 13.7.92, be treated as withdrawn. The petitioner has challenged this communication annexure. 2 by this writ petition.

(2.) THE main contention, raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was validly elected to the Senate of the University for a period of five years and is entitled to hold the Office upto June 22, 1993, and the amendment in Section 15(2)(xxiii) of the Act or the substitution of the new provision in place of the old provision will not affect the status of the petitioner as a Member of the Senate and he cannot be validly removed from his Membership on the basis of the amendment before the expiry of the term of which he was elected. The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the respondent and submitted that the petitioner ceases to be a Member of the Senate as soon as the amendment came into force because the persons serving in the University, after coming into force of the new Act, are not entitled to be elected as Member to the Senate.

(3.) IN the result, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner is allowed. The disqualification of the petitioner, imposed by the respondent, as well as the order Annexure, 2 issued by the respondent, are, therefore, quashed and set -aside and the respondent are directed to allow the petitioner to represent the Graduates' Constituency in the Senate for the unexpired period of five years.