Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16958
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WA NO. 396 OF 2024
ARISING FROM WP(C)NO.6169 OF 2024.
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
DR. MOHAMED HANEEFA. K,
AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O KUNHAMED KUTTY K,
RESIDING AT KONDADAN HOUSE, KOORIYAD P.O,
PANDIKASALA,
MALAPPURAM, PIN – 673635
BY ADVS.
A.JANI(KOLLAM)
NISA FASIL(KOLLAM)
P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR., PIN - 673635
THE CHANCELLOR,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
KERALA RAJ BHAVAN, KERALA GOVERNOR'S CAMP P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695009
THE VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.,
THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 673635
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
REGISTRAR AND RETURNING OFFICER,
ELECTION TO THE SYNDICATE OF THE CALICUT
UNIVERSITY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.,
THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN – 673635
DR. P. RAVEENDRAN,
PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
KERALA, PIN - 673635
DR. VASUDEVAN T.M
PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY & INFORMATION
SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
KERALA, PIN – 673635.
BY ADVS.
S.PRASANTH
S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.)(K/258/1973)
P.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(K/410/1994)
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
AMIT RAWAL & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of March 2024
A.JANI(KOLLAM)
NISA FASIL(KOLLAM)
P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
S.PRASANTH
S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.)(K/258/1973)
P.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(K/410/1994)
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR)
The Chancellor has the authority to intervene in election proceedings and stay the election during the pendency of an appeal.
Headnote:
Chancellor's Jurisdiction - University Election - The court considered the jurisdiction of the Chancellor to entertain an appeal regarding the rejection of nominations for the University Syndicate election. The Chancellor stayed the election proceedings, and the court upheld the Chancellor's authority to do so.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Professor and Senate member, intended to contest the election of the University Syndicate. The nominations of two respondents, also Senate members, were rejected by the Returning Officer. The respondents appealed to the Chancellor, who stayed the elections. The Single Bench rejected the writ petitions, upholding the Chancellor's power to intervene in election proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the question of whether the Chancellor had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal regarding the rejection of nominations was the subject matter of consideration. It declined to interfere with the Chancellor's order, allowing the parties to raise jurisdictional questions in the pending appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Chancellor had the authority to entertain the appeal regarding the rejection of nominations for the University Syndicate election.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Chancellor's authority to stay the election proceedings during the pendency of the appeal, leaving open all questions regarding the maintainability for the parties to agitate in the pending appeal.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the appeal by requesting the Chancellor to decide the appeal in accordance with the law, leaving open all questions regarding the maintainability for the parties to agitate in the pending appeal.
J U D G M E N T
Amit Rawal, J.
Present writ appeal on behalf of the writ petitioner is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Bench, who has not been successful in laying challenge to the order of the Chancellor dated
02/02/2024.
2. Preface to the litigation in brief is as under:
Appellant is a Professor in the Department of Library and Information and also a member of the Senate of the University of Calicut. Name being included in the electoral rolls, intended to contest the election of the Senate members. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 are none else but the nominated members of the Senate as per the provisions of Section 7 of the Calicut University Act, 1975 (the Act, for short). University of Calicut vide notification dated 15/01/2024 notified the election to reconstitute the Syndicate of the University with the following programme.
| Date of notification | 15/01/24 |
| Last date of receipt of Nomiations | 30.01.2024, 03.00 p.m. |
| Date & Hour for scruitiny of Nominations and publication of the list of validily nominated candidates. | 31.01.2024, 10.30 a.m. (Scruitiny) & 05.00 p.m (Publication). |
| Laste date and hour for withdrawal of candidature. | 05.02.2024, 11.00 a.m. |
| Date of publication of the final list of candidates | 05.02.2024, 04.00 p.m. |
| Date & Hour fixed for the poll | 17.02.2024, 10.00 a.m to 01.00 p.m. |
| Date & Hour fixed for scruitiny and counting of votes. | 17.02.2024, 02.30 p.m. |
3. Respondents 6, a nominated member and respondent no.7 a nominated ex-officio member as provided under Section 7 of the Act also submitted nominations. The nominations were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that 6th and 7th respondents are not elected to the Senate or not representing in the Senate. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 on rejection of the nomination, approached the Vice Chancellor, who did not intervene and thereafter by invoking the provisions of Section 21 (a) (iii) of the Act, invoked the jurisdiction of the appeal before the Chancellor. Vide speaking order dated
02/02/2024, noticing the balance of convenience, cognizance of the appeal was taken and vide interim order stayed the elections of the Syndicate during the pendency of the appeal. The said action was assailed before the Single Bench. Learned Single Judge rejected the writ petitions by holding that the proceedings is qua election and therefore the Chancellor had the power.
4. Mr. S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel representing the University assailed the order of the learned Single Bench on various grounds which are enumerated herein below-
(i) The writ petitioner is working as a professor in the Department of Library and Information and a member of the Senate of the University whereas 6th and the 7th respondents are ex-officio as well as other members nominated and therefore are not eligible for contesting the elections to the Syndicate. The elected members are elected from various categories giving representation to various fields as provided under Section 17(1) (2) and (3).
(ii) Respondent No.6 was nominated to the center under the heading of 'other members' from the category as representative of the 'recognized research institutions' even though he is a professor in the University College. Similarly, respondent No.7 is an ex-officio member nominated to the Senate under Section 17 (13) of the Act, who is also professor at the University of Calicut.
(iii) Learned Single Judge did not notice the fact that 6th and 7th respondents were not eligible to contest the election, this point could not be decided by the Chancellor and the Chancellor did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the proceedings of the Returning Officer, which relate to the election to the Syndicate, cannot be stretched to mean the actual proceedings defined under Section 21 of the Act for entertaining the appeal.
5. The power of the Chancellor under Section 7(3) can be invoked against any proceedings contemplated t
