ASHOK CHAND SINGHVI Vs. J N V UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of the respondents quashing the nomination papers filed by the petitioner for Academic Council as the petitioner left entries blank.

(2.) It is pertinent to note that nomination papers of some of the candidates were also rejected on the same grounds. Out of them, three candidates filed writ petitions in this Court. Miss Kusum Bhandari filed writ petition bearing No. 1857/94 against the respondent-University and others which was allowed by the learned single Judge on 31-8-94 holding that "the petitioner's nomination paper be accepted and if petitioner secures more or equal votes to the person who is last elected, the petitioner will be declared as elected and will be inducted as a member of the Academic Council". One joint writ petition bearing No. 1856/94 was also filed by Dr. A. K. Gupta and Dr. B. L. Vaishnav on 13-4-94 which was allowed by another Single Bench on 13-9-94 in terms of the aforesaid decision to hold election for the Academic Council within one month from the date of order. The petitioners for re-election and the University filed special appeals bearing No. 653/94, 654/94 and 128/95 respectively. Dr. A. K. Gupta and Dr. B. L. Vaishnav filed special appeal bearing No. 654/94 on 13-4-94 which came to be decided on 25-4-95 by a Division Bench, observing that "the learned single Judge has observed that if few more members are added to the Academic Council, it will not materially alter its construction. The learned Judges ordered that this order on the facts and circumstances of the case is totally just and proper and we are not inclined to interfere with this judgment and three months' time was granted to complete the election process" and in pursuance of which, the elections are to be held on 23-7-95 for three candidates. It is also relevant that the special appeal filed by the University was dismissed by another Division Bench on 26-4-95 as having become infructuous in view of decision of the Division Bench passed in D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 653/94.

(3.) Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's case may kindly be allowed in terms of the decisions of Single Bench which have been affirmed by Division Bench and the petitioner's name may kindly be ordered to be added as IVth candidate in the election going to take place on 23rd July, 1995 in view of Court's decision and he may be allowed to contest the election.