Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : Y.V.ANJANEYULU
S.VISWANATHA REDDY - Appellant
Versus
VICE CHANCELLOR, SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DIST., S. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-23-84
ELECTION - UNIVERSITY SENATE - NOTIFICATION CALLING FOR NOMINATIONS FROM REGISTERED GRADUATES RESIDING IN THE DISTRICT OF ANANTAPUR - VALIDITY - AMENDMENT TO STATUTES BY CHANCELLOR EXTENDING TERRITORIAL LIMITS FOR ELECTION TO SENATE TO ENTIRE DISTRICT - VALIDITY - SCOPE OF POWER OF CHANCELLOR TO AMEND STATUTES - INTERPRETATION OF ACT AND STATUTES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the notification issued by the University calling for nominations from registered graduates residing in the entire district of Anantapur for election to the Senate, contending that it was illegal as the territorial limits of the University were restricted to a radius of 30 kilometers from the headquarters of the University as per the amended Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the amendment made by the Chancellor to item (vi) under the heading Class-Ill in Statute 4 on 25-12-1983, extending the election to all the registered graduates in the district of Anantapur, was ultra vires of the provisions of Section 2 (19) of the Act and must be struck down. Consequently, the notification issued by the University calling for nominations from the registered graduates residing in the District of Anantapur was also held to be invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment made by the Chancellor to item (vi) under the heading Class-Ill in Statute 4 on 25-12-1983, extending the territorial limits for the purpose of election to the Senate to the entire District of Anantapur, was valid. 2. Whether the notification issued by the University calling for nominations to the Senate from the registered graduates in the entire District of Anantapur was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 2 (19) of the Act, which defined the University area as comprised within a radius of 30 kilometers from the headquarters of the University, and held that this definition applied for all purposes of the Act, including the Statutes prescribed under Section 27. 2. The Court held that the Chancellor's power to make amendments to the Statutes was subject to the provisions of the Act and could not run contrary to them. 3. The Court found that the amendment made by the Chancellor to item (vi) under the heading Class-Ill in Statute 4 enlarged the area for the purpose of election of members to the Senate and was not in conformity with the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 2 (19), which restricted the territorial limits of the University area. 4. The Court concluded that the amendment made by the Chancellor was ultra vires of the provisions of the Act and struck it down.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, issued a writ of certiorari striking down the amendment made by the Chancellor to item (vi) under heading Class-in in Statute 4 on 25-12-1983 and also the notification, dated 22-3-1984 issued by the University calling for nominations to the Senate from the registered graduates in the entire district of Anantapur.
( 1 ) THE petitioners herein seek a writ of mandamus declaring as illegal the notification, dated 22-3-84 issued by the second respondent for election to the Senate from the Registered Graduates Constituency. The notification was issued by the Registrar of Sri Krishnadevaraya University, anantapur (for short the University) calling for nominations from the registered Graduates Constituency to fill up three vacancies on the university Senate. Applications in the prescribed form Were invited from the Graduates of Statutory Universities residing in the District of Anantapur to register as Registered Graduates of the University in accordance with the statutes prescribed. The petitioners who have graduated themselves in the year 1983 contend that the notification issued calling for nominations from the residents of the University Graduates in the District of Anantapur is bad in asmuchas power is conferred to elect graduates residing within the University area and not in the entire District of anantapur. They also contend that their names do not appear in the register of Graduates prepared by the University because the Register of graduates was prepared by the University in the year 1982 and no fresh register was prepared after they graduated themselves in the year 1983. It is claimed that pursuant to the statutes newly amended it is obligatory on the part of the University to prepare a Register on the 1st day of October of each year. Attention is invited to Clause 12 of the amended Statutes:"12. The Register of Registered Graduates shall be revised or corrected on the first day of October of each year or any other day as notified by the University. After calling for applications for revision or correction in the prescribed form after due notification in the National Dailies". The above amendment to the Statutes was effected by the Chancellor of the University and the amendments came into force on 17-2-1984. The petitioners complain that pursuant to the above amendment, a Register of graduates as on 1-10-1983 should have been prepared and if registration of all the graduates on 1-10-1983 was done, the petitioners names would have appeared in the Register of Registered Graduates and the (PTNRS.) petitioners would have been entitled to vote in the Graduates Constituency and also seek nomination. It is represented that on account of the fact that their names do not appear in the Register of Registered Graduates they are unable to exercise their right to vote as Registered Graduates and are also unable to seek nominations. For these reasons, it is contended that the notification, dated 22-3-1984 issued by the University calling for nominations is illegal inasmuchas it runs counter to the provisions of the act and the Statutes.
( 2 ) IT is convenient to dispose of the second contention of the petitioners first. It is not denied that prior to the amendment to the statutes, which came into force on 17-2-1984 there was no obligation on the part of the University to prepare a Register of Registered Graduates on the 1st day of October of each year. This obligation was cast on the University for he first time pursuant to the amendment made by the Chancellor to the statutes which came into force on 17-2-1984. The amendment made by the Chancellor is prospective in operation. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that because of the amendment made by the Chancellor to the Statutes, the University should have prepared a Register of Graduates as on 1st October, 1983 and register all of them. The amendment, which came into force on 17-2-1984, being prospective in operation, obliges the University to prepare a fresh register of Graduates as on 1st October, 1984, and not before. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that the notification, dated 22-3-84 calling for nominations is bad because they were not registered as Graduates cannot be accepted.
( 3 ) IT may be relevant to stat
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
