Amarbir Singh Gill, J. - (1.) The petitioner assails order dated June 19, 1999 of the Vice-Chancellor. Lucknow University by which election of the petitioner as President 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 May 7, 1999. The scrutiny of the nomination papers was conducted on May 8/9, 1999 and the petitioner's name figured in the list of eligible candidates for contesting the election. The election was held on May 15, 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 Shanker Singh by margin of 216 votes. The Vice-Chancellor issued notification declaring the results of the election on May 16, 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 June 19, 1999, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the opposite party No. 2. Vice-chancellor of the University set aside the petitioner's election as President and declared the opposite party No. 4. Daya Shanker Singh as President of the Students Union. The petitioner then filed the instant writ petition against the order of the Vice Chancellor (Annexure-1).
(3.) 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.;