Point of Law: Powers of Returning Officer is concerned, it is circumscribed by applicable Rules and Regulations, which concededly accede to him/her the power to reject a nomination only if it is not valid.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner is pursuing his studies at the Post Graduate level in the ‘Government Law College’ Kozhikode and he made his nomination as a candidate to the post of ‘Class Representative’ pursuant to Ext.P1 notification of elections.

2. The petitioner says that, however, even though his nomination was valid in all respects, the 2nd respondent-Returning Officer rejected it through Ext.P5, not because of any errors therein, but incredulously saying that, if he is elected, he would not be in a position to discharge his duties as Class Representative, because his classes are to be completed very soon.

3. The petitioner asserts that the power of a Returning Officer is only to verify the validity of a nomination paper and not the eligibility or competence of a candidate and hence that she has exceeded her jurisdiction in having issued Ext.P5, thus justifying him in having approached this Court directly, without invoking his alternative remedy.

4. Smt. Thasnimol Nishad - learned counsel for the petitioner, further argued that, as is evident from Ext.P5, objections appear to had been raised that if her client is elected, he would not have enough time to function as the Class Representative, because the academic year is to end soon. She, however, added that, since the University of Calicut (University) has not even published the Examination Schedule, it is likely that her client will continue as a student for several months after the elections and hence that Ext.P5 is without any forensic justification. She thus prayed that same be set aside.

5. Before I proceed to analyze the contentions of the petitioner as afore, I must record that, when this matter was heard by this Court on 08.11.2022, I issued an interim order to the following effect:

“Even though the learned Standing Counsel for the University says that no student can be allowed to participate in the elections if they have completed their classes and that, since, the petitioner is to complete his course by the end of December 2022 - thus being disentitled to stand for elections - I am not persuaded to accept it immediately because, it is argued by Smt. Thasnimol Nishad - learned counsel for the petitioner that, there are examinations pending and that her client, therefore, should be construed as a student until it is over.

Resultantly, I direct the 2nd respondent-Returning Officer not to publish the results of the elections until the next posting date.

List on 10.11.2022.”

6. Subsequently, Smt. Parvathy Kottol - learned Government Pleader, made a request that this matter be listed today itself, because publication of the results of the election cannot otherwise be done.

7. Today, the learned Government Pleader insisted that this matter be heard immediately and I proceed to do so, with the consent of all sides.

8. Smt. Parvathy Kottol vehemently argued that Ext.P5 is irreproachable because the Returning Officer has found correctly that, if the petitioner is allowed to contest and should he win the elections, the seat would soon become vacant, because his academic period would end shortly. She pointed out that it is within the power of the Returning Officer to have done so and that the reasons stated in Ext.P5 are “germane.” She thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

9. Sri. P.C. Sasidharan - learned Standing Counsel for the University, submitted that rejection of the nomination of the petitioner was made by the Returning Officer of the College and therefore, that his client has no comment to make on it, at this point of time. He, however, added that, contrary to the assertions of the petitioner, the notification for the examinations of the course - which he is pursuing - has been published, to commence in the first week of January, 2023 and that it will be over soon thereafter, thus leading to declaration of its results within a few months therefrom.

10. The afore contentions of the respondents being so recorded, one must understand that the issu