Telangana High Court
WP/39217/2012 of D.P.Priyadarshi Joshi, Vs Vice Chancellor cum Appellate Authority, on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39217 of 2012 ORDER: The petitioner is a Research Scholar in Economics in the University of Hyderabad. Elections to the students’ union were held on 18.10.2012. The petitioner contested for the Office of the President of the union. After
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
WRIT PETITION No.39217 of2012
The petitioner is a Research Scholar in Economics in theUniversity of Hyderabad. Elections to the students’ unionwere held on 18.10.2012. The petitioner contested for theOffice of the President of the union. After the counting of votes,it emerged that respondent No.4 is elected as President andrespondent No.5 as Secretary. The petitioner challenges theelection of respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the Offices referred toabove mainly on the ground that they incurred the basicdisqualification even to contest. According to him, respondentNo.4 has backlogs by the time he filed nomination, whereasrespondent No.5 is above 25 years. The petitioner placesreliance upon an order, dated 22.09.2006, passed by theHon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)No.24295 of 2004.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
In the case referred to above, the Hon’ble SupremeCourt dealt with the manner in which the elections to thestudents’ unions in the Universities in the Country must beheld. The Ministry of Human Resources Development,Government of India appointed a Committee under theChairmanship of Mr.J.M.Lyngdoh, Former Chief Election Commissioner to examine the aspects pertaining to theelections in the University Campus. A report submitted by theCommittee was taken into account by the Supreme Court andthe recommendations made in paragraph ‘6’ were extracted.
It is, no doubt, true that one of the conditions stipulatedby the Committee was that a candidate must not haveacademic backlogs. The contention of the petitioner thatrespondent No.4 has backlog by the time he contested theelections was examined by an appellate authority. A findingwas recorded to the effect that respondent No.4 cleared thesubject “IU 202” of the VI Semester in supplementaryexamination conducted in July, 2011. The results thereof weredeclared on 18.08.2011. The election process commenced longthereafter. The petitioner was not aware of the fact thatrespondent No.4 cleared the backlog in the supplementaryexamination.
Coming to respondent No.5, the contention of thepetitioner is that the candidate was aged 28 years and hiscandidature was accepted despite the stipulation of age limit of24 to 25 years by the Committee. A perusal of the orderpassed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court discloses that theguidelines were general in nature and the stipulations madetherein are not mandatory. Further, the age limit was relaxed inrespect of Research candidates. At any rate, the objection, ifany ought to have been raised before the nomination wasaccepted. Once the candidate is elected, such a scrutiny cannot be undertaken.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition alsoshall stand disposed of.
_______________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J
Dt: 28.12.2012.
kdl