JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration to set aside the notification Anx. 2 for the election programme, for the members of Senate under section 15( ii)(xxviii)(a) of the Act and also to set aside the election of the non-petitioners No. 4 and 5. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that she had obtained highest percentage. of marks in L.L.B. II Year and her name was included in the electoral list at S.No. 44 Anx. I for election of two student members to the Senate. The petitioner has alleged that she was interested in contesting the election in question and she regularly remained in touch with the office of J.N.V. University. It is alleged that on 24.1.1994 the non-petitioners had informed about the notification dated 11.1.94 (Anx. 2). The petitioner submitted her representation to the Vice Chancellor and other authorities with a request to stay the election in question (Anx. 2) and result thereof and also prayed that the election in question may be conducted as per mandatory provisions and in accordance with the Act, Statute and Ordinance of the J.N.V. University but no action has been taken by the non-petitioners. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by means of writ petition under Art. 226 on 25.1.94: On 27.1.94, Mr. J.M. Bhandari, appeared on behalf of the University and informed the Court that two persons have already been elected to the Senate. Thereupon the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the writ petition and amended writ petition was filed adding the non-petitioners No. 4 & 5 as party, which was allowed and notices were issued to the newly added non-petitioners. Reply has been filed on behalf of the University stating that sufficient notice was given and Section 42 & 48 are not applicable. It has been stated that the elections are held in accordance with law and the non-petitioners No. 4 & 5 were declared elected on 20.1.94 (Anx. R/2) and are working. It has also been stated that Returning Officer has also not been made a party and the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. On behalf of the non-petitioner No. 5 Mr. L.R. Choudhary appeared. 3. As agreed by the counsel for the parties the case is heard finally. 4. R/2) and are working. It has also been stated that Returning Officer has also not been made a party and the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. On behalf of the non-petitioner No. 5 Mr. L.R. Choudhary appeared. 3. As agreed by the counsel for the parties the case is heard finally. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as also the relevant provisions of the Jodhpur University Act, 1962 (Now called as J.N.V. University Act). 5. The main contention of the petitioner is that the University has not followed the mandatory provisions of the Act, Statute and Ordinance as mentioned in Section 15 of the Act, Section 42 & 48 of the Statute and Ordinance 5 and other relevant provisions, hence election programme Anx. 2 is illegal so also the election of the non-petitioners No. 4 & 5 to the Senate is illegal and liable to be set aside. 6. For the convenience relevant Section 15(2)(III)(xxviii)(a)(2) is reproduced hereunder : (2) two persons shall be elected from amongst themselves by (i) the students who have obtained highest percentage of marks in various subjects at the post-graduate (previous) examinations of the University in preceding year, (ii) the students who have obtained highest percentage of marks at various University examination at under-graduate and degree level in the preceding year, and (iii) two representatives, elected from amongst themselves by the registered . scholars in University Departments, Constituent Colleges and recognised Colleges and Institutions, who are not employed in University departments, constituent colleges and recognised colleges and institutions, 7. Section 42 of the Jai Narayan Vyas University's statute, runs as under : "42 In all cases where elections are held at a meeting of any of the authorities, except in cases of casual vacancies, the notice of the meeting at which the election is to be held shall be sent to the members at least 30 clear days before the date of the meeting. Nominations shall be sent to the Registrar so as to reach him at least 15 clear days before the day of the meeting, and the Registrar shall send a list of such nominations to the members of the authority concerned at least 8 clear days before the day of the meeting. Nominations shall be sent to the Registrar so as to reach him at least 15 clear days before the day of the meeting, and the Registrar shall send a list of such nominations to the members of the authority concerned at least 8 clear days before the day of the meeting. In case an election is held by post, the procedure laid down in the case of the election of members from the registered graduate constituency, shall in so far as possible be followed at the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor..." 8. Section 15(2)(III)(xxviii)(a)(2) concerns with the election of two persons to be elected from the students who have obtained highest percentage of marks in various subjects at the post-graduate (Previous) examinations of the University in the preceding years so also from the students enumerated in (a)(2). Section 42 starts with the words "In all cases where elections are held at a meeting of any of the authorities....", which apparently relates to the elections held at a meeting of any of the authority like Senate, Syndicate or Academic Council etc. as per S. 14(1) of the Act, whereas the present case concerns with the election of two persons to be elected from the students who have obtained highest percentage of marks as envisaged in S. 15(2)(1I1)(xxviii)(a)(2). Therefore, Section 42 does not apply to the present case and the contention of counsel for the petitioner has no substance. 9. So far as the applicability of Section 48 is concerned, the respondent University with its reply has submitted the new Statute 48(Anx. Rn) which has a heading on its front page "STATUTE-48" "Statute for conduct of election to teachers from the teachers" own constituency to various authorities of the University. Statute 48 also starts with the same words. Thus, Statute 48 cannot be made applicable as suggested by the petitioner to declare Anx. 2 illegal. The petitioner has not been able to show otherwise except that the said words are not available in the Handbook but that is no ground to discard the respondents case and Anx . 10. Lastly it has been contended that the petitioner was informed about the programme of election Anx. 2 due to which she could not submit her nomination form and that she came to know only on 24.1.94. 10. Lastly it has been contended that the petitioner was informed about the programme of election Anx. 2 due to which she could not submit her nomination form and that she came to know only on 24.1.94. Undoubtedly the petitioner being a student having highest percentage of marks in L.L.B. II Year was entitled to contest the election for which she ought to have filed nomination paper in time but despite display of the notification dated 11.1.94 (Anx. 2) on notice board as is apparent from the endorsement, so also of electoral roll (Anx. 1) on the Notice Board and as per circulation amongst students of every Faculty/Department, the petitioner could not get knowledge about the election which is not acceptable. Moose, a bare perusal of the notification shows that it was also forwarded to the Faculty of Law, of which the petitioner is a regular student, therefore, also the petitioner cannot take any exception that she was not informed about the election programme Anx. 2. The contention of the petitioner that she came to know only on 24.1.94 when she was given copy of Anx. 2 at 4.00 P.M. is baseless in the absence of any document and merely on the basis of averment, the same cannot be accepted particularly when the petitioner has not been able to show why the authorities will deprive her from contesting the election and furthermore efforts were made by the University to make known to all concerned about the election programme 11. No other point has been pressed before me. 12. As already stated, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the court that any mandatory rule or provision has been violated, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 and the writ petition liable to be dismissed with cost but the petitioner being a student the cost is made easy. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition has no force, so it is hereby dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed *******