O R D E R

Petitioners are the students of Thunjath Ezhuthachan Malayalam University, the 4th respondent herein. The 1st respondent Returning Officer issued a Notification dated 22.11.2023, intimating Union Election for the year 2023-2024, Ext.P1. The schedule of the election was set out in Ext.P1. The petitioners had decided to participate in the election. The 1st petitioner submitted his nomination to the post of General Secretary on 24.11.2023 before 12 p.m., the stipulated time. The 1st petitioner came to know that his nomination was rejected, and he enquired the reason for the same with the 1st respondent. No reason was given to him. Thereafter, on 25.11.2023 a representation was given by him for knowing the reason for rejection. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners had also filled in their nominations for the post of Chairperson and Sports Secretary. Though they filled their nominations and in the column where the Finance Officer and the Director of the 2nd respondent University had also signed and were standing in the queue for submitting their nomination papers, the college authorities came to the queue and issued tokens only to 16 students randomly and that the same was not given to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. Accordingly, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners could not submit their nomination papers and the 1st respondent had denied the right of the petitioners to participate in the election. It is stated that the election rules issued by the 1st respondent, dated nil, is Ext.P4, which does not speak of any token instruction. The petition was submitted by the 2nd petitioner on behalf of the 3rd petitioner as well on 24.11.2023, pointing out the above. The 2nd petitioner had also moved the 2nd respondent to get the reason for not providing tokens and not accepting their nomination papers. The 2nd petitioner had also submitted a complaint to the 3rd respondent on 24.11.2023. The petitioners contend that the entire election procedure was wrong as against Exts.P1 and P4 and the relevant rules. The list of candidates after scrutiny is produced as Ext.P8. The petitioners also allege that since the final candidature list could have been published on 27.11.2023 by 3 p.m. as per Ext.P1, the newspaper dated 25.11.2023, Ext.P9, showed that the students belonging to a particular union had won all the seats in the University Election. Thus, it is the contention of the petitioners that the nominations of the petitioners were rejected illegally and prayed for quashing Ext.P1 Notification and also commanding the 1st respondent to accept the nomination of the petitioners and also to declare rejection of the 1st petitioner’s nomination as void. 2. A statement on behalf of the University has been filed, and later, a counter affidavit in which they have taken a stand that the 1st petitioner’s application was defective as the serial number of the petitioner was erroneously shown as Part I (1)-18 instead of the correct serial number in the final electoral roll which is Part X(1)-18 and since the information in the nomination was not correct, a communication was issued on 27.11.2023, Ext.R1(a). Though scrutiny was held on 25.11.2023, the 1st petitioner was informed over the phone, and he did not attend the scrutiny shown where his nomination was not approved. As regards the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, the University contended that they had not approached the Returning Officer with their nomination forms, and hence, they could not be included in the list of candidates. It is also stated that no token was issued on that date. It is pointed out that the first statutes of the 4th respondent University do not deal with the Union Election as it deals only with the election to the General Council and executive committee. The allegation that the rejection of the nomination of the petitioners was on political grounds was also denied. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri P.E.Sajal and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Uni