Judgment :- 1. Elections were held to elect seven members to the Senate of the University of Kerala. The results were declared on 13-6-1988. Petitioner was declared as one of those elected. He is the Principal of a Government Junior College, namely the Government Arts and Science College, Chavara. 2. The relevant portions of S.17 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 (which lays down the constitution of the Senate) read: "17. Senate-The Senate shall consist of the following members, namely: Elected Members (1) Seven Principals elected from among themselves, of whom two shall be from among Principals of Government Colleges, one from among Principals of professional colleges and one from among Principals of junior colleges. The question arising for decision in this original petition turns upon the interpretation of this provision. 3. There were fourteen candidates including the petitioner and the 4th respondent who contested at the election. The election was conducted as per the provisions of the Kerala University (Conduct of Elections to Various Authorities or Bodies) First Statutes, 1974. The election was held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote. Under this system, each elector has as many preferences as there are candidates which be indicates in the ballot paper by placing the figures 12, 3 against the names of the candidates. The quota of votes which will enable a candidate to be declared elected in this election was six. At the end of the first round of counting, five candidates did not get any vote at all and they were eliminated. Of the other nine candidates, five namely, Prof. Abraham Arakal, Prof. A. Rema Bai, Prof. G. Pankajakshan, Rev. K.A. Abraham and Prof. T.A. Dhanapalan got six or more votes and they were accordingly declared elected. The first three namely, Prof. Abraham Arakal, Prof. A. Rema Bai and Prof. G. Pankajakshan were all Principals of private (i.e. non Governmental) First Grade Colleges. Rev. K. A. Abraham was the Principal of a private Professional College while Prof. T. A. Dhanapalan was the Principal of a Government First Grade College. After the first count therefore, there were inter alia one Principal of a Professional College and one Principal of a Government College to both of which there is express reference in the relevant part of S.17, extracted earlier. 4. T. A. Dhanapalan was the Principal of a Government First Grade College. After the first count therefore, there were inter alia one Principal of a Professional College and one Principal of a Government College to both of which there is express reference in the relevant part of S.17, extracted earlier. 4. The 4th respondent who is the Principal of a Private First Grade College got five votes in the first count. The petitioner bad two votes at that stage. 5. The counting continued without any declaration of results after the second and third rounds of counting, as none of the remaining candidates obtained the requisite quota of votes. In the forth round. Prof. Gerald Alexander, Principal of a Government Junior College was declared elected. The petitioner was also declared elected as, in the returning officer's opinion, there was no further vacancy for accommodating the Principal of a Private First Grade College, like the 4th respondent. The returning officer was apparently of the view that under S.17, four vacancies had mandatorily to be filled up by two Principals of Government Colleges and one Principal each of a Professional College and of a Junior College (which may or may not be Government owned). Only a maximum of three out of the seven vacancies could thus be filled up by Principals of Private First Grade Colleges. These three vacancies had been filled up even in the first round of counting by Prof. Abraham Arakal, Prof. A. Rema Bai and Prof. G. Pankajakshan so that there was no further vacancy for a fourth Principal of a Private First Grade College to occupy. The vacancy remaining after Prof. Gerald Alexander's election was one which could be filled up either by the Principal of a Government College or by the Principal of a Junior College. The 4th respondent did not satisfy either of these requirements and therefore he was eliminated from consideration and the petitioner declared elected after Prof. Gerald Alexander, the petitioner being the Principal of a Government Junior College. 6. The 4th respondent filed election petition before the Chancellor of the University, namely the third respondent, challenging the election of the petitioner. The petition was allowed setting aside the election of the petitioner. A copy of the order of the Chancellor is Ext. P1. The Chancellor took the view that the Principal of a Government Junior College like Prof. 6. The 4th respondent filed election petition before the Chancellor of the University, namely the third respondent, challenging the election of the petitioner. The petition was allowed setting aside the election of the petitioner. A copy of the order of the Chancellor is Ext. P1. The Chancellor took the view that the Principal of a Government Junior College like Prof. Gerald Alexander could represent a dual interest, namely that of Principal of a Government College and Principal of a Junior College, so that after the declaration of election of Prof. Gerald Alexander, the remaining vacancy was open for being filled up by the Principal of even a Private First Grade College. In other words, the categories specifically mentioned in S.17 got filled up as follows: "Two Principals of Government College, Prof. T. A. Dhanapalan, Prof. Gerald Alexander Principal of Professional College Rev. K. A. Abraham Principal of Junior College Prof. Gerald Alexander." Since the mandatory requirements stood satisfied in this fashion with Prof. Gerald Alexander having a dual capacity, one seat remained vacant which could be filled up without any inhibition or requirement, by any Principal, whether of a Government or non-Government College, or of a Professional College. According to the Chancellor S.17 requires only two Principals of Government Colleges to be elected, so that if they also hold the qualifications of being Principal of Professional College or Principal of a Junior College, they will satisfy those requirements as well, and therefore the remaining vacancies need not be filled up by Principals of Professional or Junior Colleges. In other words, if the Principal of a Government Professional College or Principal of a Government Junior College got elected, further vacancy or vacancies become available for being filled up by Principals of Private First Grade Colleges. Virtually the Chancellor's view was that the number of Principals of Private First Grade Colleges to be elected was not necessarily pegged down to three, but may even get increased to five if the Principals of Government Professional College and Government Junior College got elected. 7. Petitioner challenges this view taken by the Chancellor. His case is that S.17(1) prescribes a mandatory requirement that out of the seven Principals to be elected, two should be Principals of Government Colleges, one the Principal of a Professional College and another, the Principal of a Junior College. 7. Petitioner challenges this view taken by the Chancellor. His case is that S.17(1) prescribes a mandatory requirement that out of the seven Principals to be elected, two should be Principals of Government Colleges, one the Principal of a Professional College and another, the Principal of a Junior College. These are distinct, separate vacancies, all of which should be filled up by Principals of the types of colleges mentioned. It is not sufficient compliance with the provision if one or more of them can satisfy a dual interest, by being the Principal of a Professional College or Principal of a Junior College and also being Principal of Government College. There should be four different Principals occupying these four seats and only the balance three remain to be filled up by Principals of private first grade colleges, 8. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General who appeared for the Chancellor was vehement that all that is required is two Principals of Government Colleges. If these two Principals of Government Colleges, also happened to be Principal of Professional College and Principal of Junior College, the requirements of S.17 stood satisfied. Two more seats will then become available for being filled up by Principals of Private Colleges, which need not be professional or junior. 9. The learned Advocate General raised a further contention that the original petition was bad for non-joinder of the other candidates who contested at the election. There were fourteen candidates at the election of whom seven have been declared elected. The learned Advocate General would say that apart from the petitioner and the fourth respondent, the other six defeated candidates also should be made parties to the original petition as the recounting may have an impact on their chance of success or failure. 10. After elaborately hearing both sides, I am of the view that the contentions raised by the learned Advocate General are not capable of acceptance. On my reading of the Section, what S.17 postulates as mandatory is four different heads or persons to occupy the four seats enumerated therein. It is not descriptive of different categories of Principals but enumerative of the four Principals who will occupy four out of the seven seats. It requires four distinct heads answering particular descriptions and not certain categories of Principals alone. It is not descriptive of different categories of Principals but enumerative of the four Principals who will occupy four out of the seven seats. It requires four distinct heads answering particular descriptions and not certain categories of Principals alone. It requires distinctly two seats to be occupied by Principals of Government Colleges, one by the Principal of a Professional College and one by the Principal of a Junior College. This is mandatory. Only the remaining three are available to be filled up by Principals of Private Colleges. None of the mandatory group can fill a double role of filling the seat of Principal of a Professional College or the Principal of a Junior College, and occupying at the same time, the seat of the Principal of a Government College. This would have been possible if the descriptions were category wise and not seatwise. On my reading of S.17 (1), the position is that four seats have to be filled up in the manner prescribed, by persons having the qualifications prescribed and only the other three become available for being filled up otherwise. 11. Any other interpretation of the section is likely to lead to anomalies and consequences not intended. Take the case of a Principal of Government Professional College dying or resigning after the elections. Assume that he represents the dual interest of Principal of a Government College and of a Professional College and therefore four seats have been filled up by Principals of Private First Grade Colleges. If the learned Advocate General's contention is to be accepted, the position will be that there will be six other members already in the Senate. On his death or resignation, the seat will have to be filled up only by a person who qualifies for both the capacities, and not for the one or the other. That is so, because if the newly elected person occupies only a single capacity and not the dual capacity, the number of seats may have to be increased to comply with the mandatory requirements. In other words the field of choice will get narrowed down to Principals of Government Professional Colleges only. The same will be the case if the Principal of a Government Junior College is to occupy in a dual capacity. In other words the field of choice will get narrowed down to Principals of Government Professional Colleges only. The same will be the case if the Principal of a Government Junior College is to occupy in a dual capacity. I do not think such a contingency was intended by which the electorate is constrained to choose from a very limited class of persons. Such an anomaly could be avoided if the interpretation canvassed by the petitioner is accepted. 12. A plain reading of sub-s. (1) does not support the proposition canvassed by the learned Advocate General. The wording should have been different, and it should have been very clear, if what was intended was that despite the provision for four seats in the section, the number of mandatory seats could get reduced to two in certain circumstances. 13. The question of non joinder does not arise in this case. What the petitioner challenges is the correctness of Ext. P1 by which the 4th respondent was declared elected after setting aside the petitioner's election. Five of the candidates had lost even in the first round and were eliminated. So far as they are concerned, any further counting is not going to improve their position. Only the petitioner, the 4th respondent and the remaining candidate Prof. Rama Warrier remained in the fray after the election of Prof. Gerald Alexander. If at all therefore only the non joinder of Prof. Rama Warrier survives for consideration. The question of further counting and Prof. Rama Warrier being benefited therein will arise only if the petitioner's election was not liable to be declared after Prof. Gerald Alexander's election and a recounting was necessary. That is not the case here. On my reading of S.17 as explained above, the petitioner was liable to be declared elected after Prof. Gerald Alexander. There was no scope for a recount and no question of Prof. Rama Warrier being benefited. The plea of non joinder has therefore to fail. 14. In the circumstances the order of the Chancellor namely Ext. P1, is not sustainable. I quash Ext.P1 and dismiss the election petition filed by the 4th respondent. The Original petition is allowed. No costs. Issue photo copy of the judgment on usual terms.