JUDGMENT 1. - The Matter was heard finally with consent of both the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of students of Part-II M.B.A. studying at R.A. Podar Institute of Management, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. It is submitted by Shri N.K. Maloo, learned counsel that the elections of Rajasthan University Students Union and Institutional Associations are to be held on January 29, 1991. It is submitted that the elections are held under the Constitution of Rajasthan University Students Union (for brevity 'Union Constitution') which is approved by the Syndicate of University and is published by Dean, Students Welfare University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. It is pointed out by learned counsel that the students of M.B.A. Part-I have appeared in Annual Examinations, but their result has not yet been declared, However, they have been allowed to attend classes of M.B.A. Part-II since November, 1990 and have been sitting regularly and their roll Called is taken together. It is submitted that as part of study programme these students go on an industrial tour which is an essential part of course and 20 marks are given on account of this tour as provided in the prospectus of the M.B.A. programme published by the University of Rajasthan. It is further submitted that these students have also gone on industrial tour regarding which a grant is given by University of Rajasthan. It is submitted that since the result of these students has not been declared, they are not permitted to participate in the ensuing elections. Learned counsel has filed a letter dated January 11, 1991 (Annexure-1) issued under the signature of Dean, Students Welfare and Foreign Students' Advisor, University of Rajasthan in which it has been stated that the students of M.B.A. Part-I who took examinations in the year 1990 are not eligible to fit for elections untill their results are declared and they are re-admitted to M.B.A. Part-II till 17:1991. This date has been mentioned since the nomination papers were to be filed untill that date. It is submitted that the nomination papers by source of the petitioner students have been filed. The scrutiny was to be held on January 22, 1991 and due to ad-interim order of this Court that their nomination-papers were not scruitinised/rejected and are pending consideration. 4. It is submitted that the nomination papers by source of the petitioner students have been filed. The scrutiny was to be held on January 22, 1991 and due to ad-interim order of this Court that their nomination-papers were not scruitinised/rejected and are pending consideration. 4. It is contended by Shri N.K. Maloo, learntsl counsel that on page 26 of the Rajasthan University Constitution certain examples given by the Vice-Chancellor regarding qualification for student members have been given. On page 26 at serial No. 2 it is mentioned that "all those LL.M. Part-I students whose results have not been declared are eligible for participation in the elections subject to the condition that if they are subsequently declared to have failed the election will stand cancelled." It is also pointed out that on page 27 it is further mentioned that "all such candidates as have failed but have been permitted to carry over to the next higher class shall be deemed to have passed for the purpose of contesting the ensuing election to the various offices of the RUSU/Institutional Association." The above rule however, is not applicable in respect of those candidates for whom passing in the supplementary examinations is a prerequisite to condition for promotion to the next higher classes." It is, therefore submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner-students are on the same footing as mentioned at serial No. 2 on page 26 quoted above since their result has not been declared but have been allowed to sit the course of M.B.A. Part-II. 5. It is submitted by Shri Dilip Singh, learned counsel that Section 19 sub-clause (2) provides that any matter for which this constitution does not provide, the decision of Vice-Chancellor Shall be final. It is pointed out that interpretation dated September 21, 1989 as published on Page 28 of Union . Constitution under heading 'General' at serial No. 1, it is mentioned that only the students who are on the rolls during the current academic session are eligible to vote. Those who were students during the immediate proceeding year but whose examinations are yet to be held, are not eligible to vote or contest the election. Constitution under heading 'General' at serial No. 1, it is mentioned that only the students who are on the rolls during the current academic session are eligible to vote. Those who were students during the immediate proceeding year but whose examinations are yet to be held, are not eligible to vote or contest the election. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in accordance with this interpretation given by the Vice-Chancellor the petitioner-students were not eligible to vote or contest the election as according to the University they are not on the rolls during the current academic session since their results have not yet been declared, and it is for the benefit of the students that they have permitted to attend the classes of M.B.A. Part-II, so that their valuable time is not lost. The learned counsel has also referred the matter of Jyoti Basu and ors. v. Debi Ghosal and ors., AIR 1982 SC 983 and pointed out that in para 7 & 8, the Apex Court has observed that a right to contest the election is a pure and simple statutory right. Outside the statute, there is no right to election, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel that according o the interpretation given by the Vice-Chancellor on September 21, 1989, since these students are not on the rolls during the current academic session they are not eligible for exercising their right of election. 6. I have heard both the parties and also gone through the documents on record. 7. There is no doubt that the Vice-Chancellor is the final authority, so far as interpretation of the Union Constitution is concerned as is provide under Section 19 of the same. It may be pointed out that the interpretation given under heading General on page 29 is regarding such students who are not on the rolls during the current academic session and it is further mentioned that those who were students during the immediate academic year, but whose exams are yet to be held are not eligible to vote or contest the election. In the matter under consideration these students have already appeared in the examination of M.B.A. Part-I, but their result has not been declared which evidently is not on their hands. In the matter under consideration these students have already appeared in the examination of M.B.A. Part-I, but their result has not been declared which evidently is not on their hands. They have been allowed to sit in M.B.A. Part-II since November, 1990. They have also gone on industrial tour which is a part of their study and marks are given on this account. Apart from this in earlier similar instance mentioned at page 26 at serial No. 2 as already pointed out LL.M. Part-I students whose results had not been declared were held to be eligible for participation in the elections subject to the condition that if they are subsequently declared to have failed the election will stand cancelled. The general interpretation given by the Vice-Chancellor in my opinion does not cover the Contengancy of such students who have appeared in the examination, but whose results have no been declared so far. It can be said that the University has nothing to loose or gain by allowing a particular section of students to participate in the elections and the stand taken by the learned counsel is only in accordance with the interpretation given by the Vice-Chancellor, So far as the principle enuntiated in the case of Jyoti Basu (Supra) there is no doubt that the right to elect, get elected etc. is a right provided under statute alone. So far as this condition is concerned, the petitioner-students stand on the same footing as the other students of various other institutions affiliated with the University are concerned. 8. Since in the earlier instance the University had permitted similarly situated students of LL.M. Part-I, I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner-students also deserve to be allowed to participate in the elections to be held on January 29, 1991 with the condition that if any of such candidates who are elected, but are declared to be failed in M.B.A. Part-I examinations, their elections shall stand automatically cancelled without passing any order by the University of Rajasthan. 9. The writ petition is allowed as above with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******