K. Kannan, J - (1.) THE writ petition is to quash the notice issued by the University declining to recognize the petitioners as persons elected to the governing body of RKSD (PG) College, Kaithal. The notice was issued under Annexure P -20 on 04.05.2011 by the University stating that the petitioners who claimed to have been elected could not have been lawfully elected at all for two reasons. One, the election schedule which had been announced that fixed the date of election as 09.03.2011 had been stayed by an order of the High Court on 07.03.2011 in a civil revision petition brought to this Court against an interim order passed in civil suit filed by some persons against the petitioners. Subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. The election which was scheduled to be held on 09.03.2011 had been stayed could not have, therefore, caused a situation where petitioners could treat themselves as having been elected even earlier on 21.03.2011. Another objection which was taken was that in terms of Clause (6)(c)(i) Ordinance XVI of University Calendar Volume -I, 2009, the tenure of governing body shall be 3 years and the election would be held after every 3 years. The election shall be held under the supervision of the observer to be appointed by the University. The observer had not been appointed by the University for the election and consequently, there could have been no valid election electing the petitioners. It appears that the civil revision was disposed of 21.03.2011 as having become infructuous, in view of the fact that the suit had also been withdrawn. In the meanwhile a fresh election was notified on 07.05.2011 through Annexure P -24 and there is a prayer for quashing Annexure P -24 as well.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that an election schedule which was notified for an election to take place on 09.03.2011 did not require to be held as such in view of the fact that the persons, who had filed the nominations had withdrawn, meaning thereby only the petitioners remained in fray, even on 25.02.2011 and there was no necessity for having to go through an electoral process. Since the petitioners were elected unopposed, there was no requirement of the presence of an observer, for, such a requirement was necessary only in the event of an election taking place. The counsel would also argue that even if the election were to be held as not valid, it could have been only brought through a challenge in independent election petition and the University cannot take a position that a particular election held of the office bearers of a private management was not valid. The University had no power to declare a particular election of the office bearers of the private society to be invalid and the order passed by the University was, therefore, incompetent. The counsel would also state that the order passed quashing the election and declining to recognize the petitioners as elected members was against the principles of natural justice. I reject all these contentions as legally untenable. If an election schedule had been prepared and election was to be held on 09.03.2011, result of an election could still be available not earlier than when the election was duly notified. The suit for injunction before the Civil Court had been instituted even in the year 2009 and if during the pendency of a suit, an interim order had been passed and it had been brought in revision before this Court and stay had been granted against the election, the petitioners cannot have a case that they must have been deemed to have been elected even on 21.03.2011 unopposed. The fact that any person had withdrawn would still result in the declaration of result only on the day when the election was scheduled to take place. If that eventuality has been stayed by the order of the Court and on account of the fact of withdrawal of the suit, the revision petition became infructuous, it would have still required a fresh election process to have begun. If the rules indicated that the election shall be held only in the presence of the observer of the University, a situation of no contest could still be done only in the presence of an observer and a self -declaration that they must be treated as elected even on 21.03.2011 was clearly a make believe affair and could have no legal sanction and the University was perfectly competent to declare that they did not recognize the petitioners as elected members. It is not as if the petitioners declared the election to be invalid, it was merely a case of the University not recognizing certain persons as representatives of the society which runs the college. Even a provision for an observer of the University at the time of election is only to ensure that the University dealt with persons of responsibility who were running the college. The presence of an observer has, therefore, a salutary objective to fulfill that the University is aware of the persons to whom they are dealing and they are also aware that persons that represent the college are persons duly elected to represent the society that runs the College. In such a situation of what was patently illegal, there was no scope for serving show cause notice on the petitioners as alleged elected representatives when there could have been no election at all on 09.03.2011 in view of the order of stay of election passed by the Court.
(3.) THE notice issued by the University declining to recognize the petitioners as elected members was perfectly justified and I will find no cause for interfering the same. Even the schedule of fresh election which was notified could not have been challenged in the light of the decision taken above. I do not have information about what had really happened subsequent to the notice which was issued under Annexure P -24, for, in the court file there is no interim order except to state that any decision shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Assuming for argument that an election had taken place afresh even that tenure of office as an elected body was only for a period of three years and three years period must have also expired by now. If fresh election were to take place needless to state that necessary formalities will have been observed and the presence of the representatives of the University would also be done in accordance with law. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations.;