Yaghvendra Kumar vs Union of India and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Khanna learned Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner is a student of B.Tech. Course in the institute known as Chaudhari Chotu Ram Institute of Engineering and Technology which is a campus college of Chaudhari Charan Singh University, Meerut. The petitioner has assailed the action of the University and the notification dated 6.10.2012 challenging the holding of the Students Union Election on the ground that it is in violation of Ordinance 12.2 of the Ordinances framed by the University and is not in conformity with Clause 6.5.2 of the Lyngdoh Committee report as accepted by the Apex Court in the case of University of Kerala Vs. Council, Principals'', Colleges, Kerala and Others, . Sri Awasthi submits that the academic session had already commenced in July, and the students of B.Tech had already been admitted according to the tentative academic calendar copy whereby has been filed as Annexure-2. To substantiate his submissions he also relies on the examination schedule of the first sessional examination of first semester held in October, 2012 to contend that the academic session had begun and the examinations have also been held and, therefore, in view of the definition as referred to hereinabove the elections are being held beyond the period prescribed therein. In the circumstances he submits that the elections cannot be held at all and the notification be quashed. A perusal of the tentative academic calendar indicates that the start of session has been indicated on 23.7.2012.

Sri Anurag Khanna on the other hand contends that this issue was raised and in the proceedings on 4.10.2012 the date of the commencement of session on account of delayed admissions was clearly notified as 24.8.2012. The proceedings are produced herein under for ready reference:

He further contends that the provisions of Ordinance-12 are mandatory and not directory so as to invite any penalty if the elections are delayed by a few days or two weeks. He has further submitted that the election process commenced with the notification on 5.10.2010 and, therefore, the same may not be interfered with as the elections are scheduled to be held tomorrow, for which reliance is placed on Supreme Court decision in the case of Election Commission of India Through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others, .

In Rejoinder Sri Asasthi has relied on an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 12496 of 2007 dated 7.3.2007 which is reproduced herein under:

Connect with W.P. No. 12173/07.

Sri Anurag Khanna, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondents No. 1,2,3 & 4.

Issue notice to respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 fixing 23.3.2007 as the date for appearance.

Petitioner to take steps within three days by speed post.

All the respondents may file their respective counter-affidavits by the date fixed.

List on the date fixed.

It is stated that the Apex Court in its judgment dated 22.9.2005 passed in SLP No. 24295/04 University of Kerala v. Council, Principals Colleges, Kerala and Others, while accepting the recommendations of Lyngdoh Committee had provided that election of students union should be held between 6 to 8 weeks from the date of commencement of the academic session. The aforesaid recommendation of Lyngdoh committee has also been adopted in the Ordinances of Meerut University, being Ordinance No. 12.2. It is submitted academic session 2006-07 from August, 2006 commenced and the teaching work practically come to an end in the last week of February, 2007. Only examinations are now to be held in the concerned subjects.

It is therefore submitted that holding of election of students Union at the fag end of the academic session is totally uncalled for and will necessarily hamper free and peaceful examination in the University as well as the process of admission for the ensuing academic year.

Prima facie petitioner has made out a case for grant of interim relief.

Till the next date of listing election of the Students union shall not take place.

This order has been passed in presence of the Counsel for the University, who shall ensure communication thereof to the University authorities today itself.

The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on account of lapse of time by the judgment dated 25.8.2011 and also on account of the learned Counsel not having appeared before the learned Single Judge.

Learned Counsel for the contesting candidate has been heard under Chapter 22 Rule 5A of the Allahabad High Court Rules even though he has not been served with a notice of this writ petition.

Having considered the arguments at length the petitioner has surfaced at the last moment when the elections are scheduled to be held tomorrow. Apart from this Statute 12.2 indicates that the elections shall be held on an yearly basis between 6 to 8 weeks of the date of commencement of the academic session so as to avoid any disturbance in the academic life of the students. The aforesaid provision is perfectly justified but the same cannot be interpreted to mean that if the elections are held a few days after the expiry of the said period, the same would invite a penalty of cancelling the entire elections. The interim order relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. In Writ Petition No. 12496 of 2007 (supra) was a case where the elections were proposed to be held at the feg end of the academic session. Thus the aforesaid situation is absolutely distinguishable on facts from the present case where the elections, according to the University, are being held within eight weeks of the commencement of the Session which they contend has begun on 25.8.2012.

Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the Session had commenced on 23.7.2012, the delay is of only a few weeks, if construed strictly as per the ordinance 12.2. In my opinion this particular ordinance requires a liberal interpretation to the extent that if the election has been delayed by a few days or as in the present case, the same would not invite the penalty of cancellation of the entire elections or else it would be contrary to the pith and substance of the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of University of Kerala (supra). Thus on a simple calculation and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court does not find either any violation of the report of the Lyngdoh Committee or of the ordinances as framed by the University so as to set aside the election process that too even on the last day preceding the date of elections.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.