RAJPAL SHARMA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :

(2.) The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the writ petition are that petitioners were elected as President and General Secretary respectively of the Rajasthan University Students' Union (for short Union) on 21st August, 2004. The tenure of the offices of the office-bearers of the Union is prescribed under Section 20 of the constitution of the Rajasthan University Students' Union which is one year from the date of elections or till the next election whichever is earlier, therefore, their tenure is upto 20th August, 2005. However, non-petitioner No. 3 Dean, Students Welfare, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur has advised the petitioners vide order dated 14-5-2005 to hand over the charge of the offices immediately. The said order dated 14th May, 2005 has been issued in pursuance of order dated 11th May, 2005 issued by Vice-Chancellor, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The order dated 11th May, 2005 issued by Vice-Chancellor has been issued on the basis of decision of the Hon'ble High Court given in D. B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 188/2002, dated 25th August, 2003 regarding term of office-bearers of the Rajasthan University Students' Union. The petitioners have pleaded that the non- petitioner No. 1 has mis-interpreted the order of Division Bench dated 25-8-2003 which was not relating to the University of Rajasthan. It has also been pleaded that impugned orders are contrary to Section 20 of the constitution of Rajasthan University Students' Union, therefore, they are liable to be set aside and appropriate writ, order or direction are required to be issued to allow the petitioners to continue their offices of Rajasthan University Students' Union as President and General Secretary respectively.

(3.) A notice to show cause was given to the respondents who have filed their reply to the writ petition wherein the contents of the writ petition have not been admitted as mentioned. In para 7 of the reply, it has been pleaded that it is true that in the judgment under reference in Special Appeal No. 188/2002, a specific reference in regard to three Universities has been given but the directions are as such are quite material and taking judgment to be a judgment in rem, the order under challenge has been passed. It has further been pleaded that judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in suo motu petition also becomes material because if the educational environment is required to be uplifted, then neither the election have to be permitted nor the continuance of officebearers, moreso when a shabby picture is printed on account of union activities.