( 1. ) APPELLANT has filed this appeal against the order dated 21-7-2011 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3578/11.

( 2. ) APPELLANT is a registered graduate of the University, respondent No. 4, and eligible to contest election of Executive Council amongst the registered graduates to the University Court. The appellant further pleaded that he contested the previous election, however, he lost the election with narrow margin. The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court because the learned Single Judge has held that respondents No. 1 to 3 are eligible to continue as Members of the University Court up to August, 2012. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant has filed this appeal, although the appellant was not made respondent before the writ Court by the original petitioners (herein respondents No. 1 to 3).

The University, respondent No. 4, issued notification in June, 2008 under section 20(l)(c)(XIX) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1973', for the purpose of election amongst registered graduates. Respondents No. 1 to 3 were elected as members of the Court of University and a notification has been issued by the Election Officer to this effect under section 20(l)(c)(XIX) of the Act of 1973 on 16th July, 2008.

( 3. ) RESPONDENTS No. 1 to 3 were informed vide letter dated 19-5-2011 issued by the Registrar of the University informing that they were elected to the University Court vide notification dated 16th July 2008, hence, their period shall come to an end on 3-7-2011. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid letter the respondents filed petition before this Court contending that they are eligible to continue as members of the Court for a period of three years from 24-8-2009 because on the aforesaid date the Court of the University was not constituted. The learned Single Judge on the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Sohane and others vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya and others, reported in 7997 MPLJ 489, allowed the writ petition vide impugned order.

( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is an aggrieved person because due to the order passed by the learned Single Judge the right of appellant to contest election to the Court of University amongst registered graduates has been affected. LEARNED Counsel further submitted that the Court of University was not constituted on 24-8-2009, hence, respondents No. 1 to 3 have no right to continue for a period of three years from 24-8-2009 as held by the learned Single Judge. He further submitted that the decision of the University in regard to term of respondents No. 1 to 3 is in accordance with law.

Learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 has raised a preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the appeal. He contended that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable because the appellant was not a party before the writ Court nor the appellant is an affected person. Learned Counsel further contended that the Court of University was constituted vide letter dated 24-8-2009, hence, the respondents No. 1 to 3 are entitled to count period of their term of membership, which is three years, from 24-8-2009. In support of his contentions learned Counsel relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Surendra Sohane and others vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya and others, reported in 1991 MPLJ 489.

( 5. ) SHRI Tapan Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of intervenor, has adopted the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for appellant.

( 6. ) SECTION 20 of the Act of 1973 prescribes constitution of Court of an University. SECTION 20(1)(xix) prescribes that there shall be five representatives to be elected by the registered graduates of the University. The relevant provision is as under :?

"20. Constitution of C