Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2786
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
SHAFIL G. – Appellant
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT – Respondent
WP(C) 31993/2023
NISHA GEORGE, A.L. NAVANEETH KRISHNAN GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.), S. PRASANTH, S. GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.)
The judgment underscores the necessity of conducting statutory elections within stipulated timelines to preserve the rights of elected university members.
Headnote:
Election - University Syndicate - Calicut University Act 1975 - The Court directed the University to conduct elections for the syndicate promptly, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural formalities outlined in the Act and Statute to avoid prejudice to elected members.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, elected members of the University senate, argued that the Vice Chancellor delayed the election of the syndicate after the senate was constituted, resulting in a loss of their rights, and sought the Court's intervention to facilitate the election process.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found no evidence of willful delay by the Vice Chancellor, but emphasized the need for elections to be conducted efficiently as per the necessary formalities dictated by the Act and Statute governing the University.
Issues: The primary issue revolved around whether the Vice Chancellor was responsible for the delay in conducting the syndicate elections and the implications of such a delay on the petitioners' rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that compliance with procedural requirements under the Calicut University Act and the relevant Statutes was essential for conducting the syndicate election, thus directing timely action.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the election to be completed within one month.
J U D G M E N T
The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to notify the election of the syndicate of the University.
2. Petitioners are the elected members to the senate of the respondent University which was constituted on 29.06.2023. Petitioner would contend that there was even an attempt to delay the reconstitution of the senate after the expiry of the term of the previous senate and only on the intervention by this Court as per Ext P1 judgment that the senate was constituted on 29.06.2023. Though the senate was constituted on 29.06.2023, the first meeting of the senate was held only on 12.09.2023. Petitioners contend that the said delay was a deliberate one to delay the election and constitution of the syndicate.
3. Petitioners submit that the Vice Chancellor is responsible to conduct election to the syndicate. However, the Vice Chancellor has not taken any steps for the conduct of the election till date. Petitioners submit that Government nominees have been appointed as per Ext P2 and the administration of the University and major decisions are now been taken by six members appointed by the Government through Ext P2. Thereupon, petitioners preferred Ext P4 representation dated 13.09.2023 before the 3rd respondent seeking urgent intervention for immediate steps for conduct of the election to the syndicate.
4. Petitioners are persons elected from the student constituency to the senate as per the provisions of the University Act and Statutes. The term of student members to the senate is for a period of one year and the term starts from the date of the constitution of the Senate. Since the senate was reconstituted only on 29.06.2023 they have already lost three months, and their right to participate in the election of the syndicate is also prejudiced. Petitioners submit that the delay in conducting the election to the syndicate is politically motivated. It is in the said circumstance that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to notify the election to the syndicate of the University.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 3, wherein it is stated that the Vice Chancellor has at no point of time attempted to delay the election to the syndicate of the University and further submitted that as per the Calicut University Act 1975 (Act 1975), there are 111 members in the senate and the senate consist of ex-officio members, elected members and other members. Out of the 25 ex-officio members, 11 members are to be nominated by the Chancellor and out of the 24 other members, 18 members are to be nominated by the Chancellor. Respondents 1 and 3 would submit that the Chancellor is yet to nominate the person to be nominated by him and that atleast one-fourth of the members are to be nominated members by the Chancellor. The University is of the opinion that it is not fair to hold election to the syndicate unless persons are nominated by the Chancellor and that there is absolutely no willful laches on the part of the University to conduct the election to the senate.
6. An additional counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, wherein it is stated that the Chancellor of the University has sought the panel of persons for consideration for nomination and thereupon the University has forwarded the panel on 21.10.2023 as per Ext R1(c) and R1(d) communication and that the matter is now pending before the 2nd respondent Chancellor.
7. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated that the proposal submitted by the Vice Chancellor was found to be incomplete. The Office of the Chancellor vide letter dated 02.08.2023 requested to furnish complete proposal of the name of incumbents for consideration and nomination by the Chancellor. Thereupon the Vice Chancellor has nominated 7 Heads of Department and 4 Deans of Faculties as recommended by the Chancellor to the senate of the Universi
