- (1.) AMARBIR Singh Gill, J. The petitioner assails order dated 19th June, 1999 of the Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University by which election of the petitioner as present of the Lucknow University Students' Union has been set aside.
(2.) THE election process of Lucknow University Students' Union (in brief Students' Union) for session 1998-99 was initiated by notification. The petitioner submitted his nomination papers for the office of President on 7th May, 1999. THE scrutiny of the nomination papers was conducted on 8th/9th May, 1999 and the petitioner's name figured in the list of eligible candidates for contesting the election. The election was held on 15th May, 1999 and the counting of the votes was completed by mid-night of the same date. The petitioner scored highest number of votes and defeated his nearest rival, opposite party No. 4, Sri Daya Shankar Singh by margin of 216 votes. The Vice- Chancellor issued notification declaring the results of the election on 16th May, 1999. However, the election of the petitioner as President was mentioned as subject to decision on the complaint filed by Daya Shanker Singh, opposite party No. 4. The petitioner challenged the conditional declaration of his result as President by way of Writ Petition No. 2264 (M/b) of 1999 (connected writ petition) seeking a relief of quashing of the condition imposed in the declaration of his election as President and for allowing him to discharge his functions as President of the Students' Union. Subsequently by the impugned order dated 19th June, 1999 as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition, the opposite party No. 2, Vice-Chancellor of the University set aside the petitioner election as President and declared the opposite party No. 4 Daya Shankar Singh as President of the Students' Union. The petitioner then filed the instant writ petition against the order of the Vice-Chancellor (Annexure 1 ). The grievance raised in this writ petition is that the action of the Vice-Chancellor emanates from political vendetta, bias and is without jurisdiction and that the Vice- Chancellor could entertain a complaint only in respect of the validity of counting of votes by Returning Officer within 24 hours of the closing of the counting for the purpose of declaration of the result of the election and since counting of votes was not challenged, the Vice-Chancellor illegally entertained a complaint challenging the status of the petitioner as student of the University and by the impugned order the petitioner, although was regular student of the University, his status as such has been determined. The petitioner claimed that the period of his research as Ph. D. student was duly extended by Vice-Chancellor in accordance with rules on the recommendation of the Head of the Department and he was regular student of the University and entitled to contest the election. He also claims that likewise there are other students who are continuing as Ph. D. students and they have been allowed to participate in election process and to cast votes. The case of the opposite parties on the contrary is that the petitioner joined his Ph. D. course as a regular student for the session 1994-95 for three years. This period was extended for one year and thereafter he ceased to be regular student in accordance with Paragraph 7 of the Ordinance pertaining to degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University and his candidature having been accepted by mistake, does not entitle him to be elected as President as only a regular student of the University is eligible for contesting elections of the University Students' Union. Besides, the writ petition is not maintainable because the constitution of Students' Union is non statutory one. The Vice-Chancellor or is merely a Patron of the Students' Union Council and thereby does not act as an Officer of the University.
(3.) IN his separate counter affidavit, Sri Daya Shankar Singh, opposite party No. 4, has supported the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 19th June, 1999 and has asserted that the petitioner was not a regular student of the University and as such was ineligible to contest any election in the University Students'union. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.;