NARHARI H AMIN Vs. GUJARAT UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amendment, as per the Draft Amendment dated 06.08.2012 in Writ Petition (PIL) No.169 of 2012 is allowed. Both the petitions and civil application are, by consent and at the request of learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard for final disposal and disposed by this common judgment. SCA No.10780 of 2012 is filed by two members of the Court (popularly known as 'Senate') and members of the Executive Council of respondent No.1, the Gujarat University. They are aggrieved by inaction of the respondents in not notifying and conducting election of the Executive Council despite the election programme and date of election having been fixed by the then Vice Chancellor of the University and such programme having been unanimously approved by the Executive Council of the University of which the term is expiring on 30.08.2012. According to the petition, extensive powers and duties of the Executive Council are prescribed under section 20 of the Gujarat University Act, 1949 (for short, "the Act"). The Executive Council has to be constituted in accordance with section 19 of the Act and it consists of 13 representatives elected by the Court, two members elected by the Academic Council, 4 persons nominated by the State Government, two members nominated by the Hon'ble Chancellor from amongst the members of the Court, besides one representative of the governing bodies of affiliated colleges elected by the Court. By virtue of the provision of sub-section (2) of section 19, the term of office of the elected and nominated members is restricted to three years. Besides such 15 elected and seven nominated members of the Council, it consists of the Vice Chancellor, the pro-Vice Chancellor, if any, the Director of Higher Education, the Director of Technical Education and the Director of Health and Medical Services & Medical Education. By virtue of the provisions of sections 28 and 29 of the Act, the Court of the University is empowered to make, amend, repeal or add to statutes and election to the authorities of the University has to be held in accordance with Chapter XII according to Statute 137. And according to Statute 138, subject to section 56 of the Act, the Vice Chancellor has the power to fix the date of election. Statute 161 of Chapter XIII provides that, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Statutes, election of the Executive Council has to be held in accordance with the statutes and in the manner prescribed in Statute 159.

(2.) With the above backdrop of statutory provisions, it is averred for the petitioners that considering the importance of the Executive Council and the role it plays in the administration of the University and with a view to ensuring that it is duly elected in time, the then Vice Chancellor had fixed 30.08.2012 as the date for election of the Council. The Vice Chancellor had also fixed the election programme with dates for conducting various steps for the election. That programme was declared in the meeting held on 09.05.2012 of the Executive Council and it was unanimously approved by the entire Council, which included respondent No.2, who is, by now, the pro-Vice Chancellor and exercising the powers of the Vice Chancellor. Pursuant to the resolution approved in the subsequent meeting of the Executive Council held on 23.6.2012, the In-charge Registrar, respondent No.3 herein, had already initiated the process for constituting new Executive Council and, after obtaining approval of respondent No.2, addressed letters dated 18.7.2012 to the State Government as well as the Hon'ble Chancellor requesting them to nominate representatives to the Executive Council under section 19 of the Act. Accordingly, the Registrar was required to notify the election on 03.08.2012 under Statute 161 (1); but he did not do so. The petitioners have averred and alleged that they came to know that respondent Nos.2 and 3, under pressure of the State Government, wanted to delay/postpone the election and, therefore, by representation dated 03.08.2012 they demanded that the election be held and notices be issued as per the programme. They were orally informed by respondent No.2 that he is instructed by the State Government not to hold elections till the elections of the Legislative Assembly are over, according to the petition. Then, it was reported in the newspaper of 05.08.2012 that Shri B.V.Patel, In-charge Registrar, had tendered his resignation and he was forced to resign as a part of strategy to delay the election, according to the allegation.

(3.) Writ Petition (PIL) No.169 of 2012 is filed by a student, aged 20, in public interest on his own, with the main prayer to direct the authorities of the University to hold election for the students' representatives for the year 2012-2013, prior to the election of the Executive Council, for the term 2012-2015; and, in the meantime, stay the election of the Executive Council. As recorded in the order dated 07.08.2012 (Coram: Hon'ble the Chief Justice and J.B.Pardiwala, J.), the Court was of the view that the matter could not be treated as a PIL and upon submission of learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners, the petition was treated as an ordinary writ application and ordered to be placed before this Court on account of SCA No.10780 of 2012 being pending before this Court. Civil Application No.9371 of 2012 is filed by eight members of the University Court with the prayers to be made party-respondents in the main petition on the basis that, as Senate Members, they are entitled to vote and contest for membership of the Syndicate (Executive Council) and they are interested in seeing that election for the students' representatives in the Senate is held before the election of Syndicate. Clearly, the PIL and the Civil Application are filed with ill-concealed purpose of delaying election of the Executive Council of the University, at least till election of the students' representatives to the University Court is held. It is contended on their behalf that the Senate has total 146 members, including 11 representatives of the students; and holding election to the Executive Council prior to the Court (Senate) would be total sabotage of the democratic structure, insofar as the students, for whom the University is established, would have no voice in the election of members of the Executive council. It is also contended that the Gujarat University Court (Senate) had resolved on 24.3.2012 that it would be ideal if election of the students' representatives to the Senate were held in the month of October, 2012 and that resolution is ignored by the Executive Council. It is also contended as a ground in the PIL that only representatives of the students suffer because their term expires with each academic year and their elections are held almost at the fag-end of the year, whereby they are given hardly a few months as Senate members and they also stand to lose the right to vote as members of the Senate or to contest election for membership of the Executive Council.