( 1 ) SINCE same questions of law and facts are involved on all these three petitions, all these petitions are disclosed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE writ petitioners in all these three writ petitions were the elected members to the Syndicate of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as RGUHS for brevity) at the elections held on 5. 7. 2003. Their election was challenged by the respondent Dr. H. Veerabhadrappa by filing an election petition before the Chancellor, by his order dated 8. 7. 2003 has set aside the election solely on the ground that the election was vitiated by the improper acceptance of the vote of one Dr. R. D. Desai who had voted when on leave to the post of In-charge Principal of Vijayanagar institute of Medical Sciences, Bellary. This order of the Chancellor is challenged in these three writ petitions. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the University RGUHS was directed to produce the records during the hearing of the petitions. Accordingly, he has done. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of these petitions as gathered from the records and the pleadings are as under: the affairs of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences is governed by a legislative enactment called as Rajiv Gandhi University of health Sciences Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the RGUHS Act ). The RGUHS Act has created certain officers and authorities for effective administration of its affairs. Among them, foremost is the Senate and the Syndicate as per Sec. 20 of the Act. Under Sec. 21 (xiv) of the Act, the members of the Senate consists among others, 6 heads of the colleges nominated by the chancellor in consultation with the Vice Chancellor by rotation for a period of three years. ( 4 ) THE other important body of the University is the Syndicate constituted under sec. 24 which consists of the Vice Chancellor and among others, 3 persons elected by the Senate from amongst themselves (Sec. 24 (VII ). The Syndicate has been given important legislative functions under Sec. 35 of the Act and the power to frame Rules under Sec. 36. Section 33 (1) (b) of the RGUHS Act provides for framing of statutes providing the procedure for conducting election tot eh authorities. The Syndicate has been given important legislative functions under Sec. 35 of the Act and the power to frame Rules under Sec. 36. Section 33 (1) (b) of the RGUHS Act provides for framing of statutes providing the procedure for conducting election tot eh authorities. Sec. 59 of the Act invests the Chancellor with the power to resolve a dispute arising out of elections. Sec. 59 reads as under. Disputes as to constitution of university Authorities and bodies: if any question arises whether any person has been duly elected or nominated as, or is entitled to be, a member of any authority of the university or other body of the University, the question shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision there on shall be final. ( 5 ) IN exercise of powers under sec. 21 of the act, a notification was issued on 11. 61. 2003 reconstitution the Senate of the University by appointing several persons under Sec. 21 the six heads of colleges as stated in the notification, are as under: principal vijayanagar Institute of Medical Sciences cantonment, Bellary 583 104 principal V. S. Dental College v. V. Puram, K. R. Road, Bangalore 4 principal ayurveda Vidyalaya Samithis Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya bijapur 586 101 prinicpal a. M. Saikh Homeopathic medical College nehrunagar, Belgaum 590 010 principal hke Societys Mahadevappa Rampure College of Pharmacy gulburga 585 105 principal institute of Health Sciences (Para Medical Physiotherapy) vidyanagar, Panjimogaru mangalore 575 013 ( 6 ) PURSUANT to the reconstitution of the Senate a calendar of events for electing three persons from among the six heads of institution was issued by a notice of election dated 11. 6. 2003. as per the calendar of events, the last date and hour set for filing of nomination was 23. 6. 2003 (Monday) 4. 00 P. M. The manner of conducting election as per the notification voting by personal ballot in accordance with the system of single, proportional representation by means of single transferable vote. The Registrar of the University was appointed as the Returning officer. Among the candidates who contested the election from the Senate were Dr. H. Veerabhadrappa, Dr. C. N. Aswath Narayan, Dr VI Hukkeri. 40 members voted in the election. The votes polled by each of the contesting candidates are as under:1. Dr. C. N. Aswath Narayan - 1100 2. Dr. G. C. Basavaraj - 200 3. Dr. Among the candidates who contested the election from the Senate were Dr. H. Veerabhadrappa, Dr. C. N. Aswath Narayan, Dr VI Hukkeri. 40 members voted in the election. The votes polled by each of the contesting candidates are as under:1. Dr. C. N. Aswath Narayan - 1100 2. Dr. G. C. Basavaraj - 200 3. Dr. B. C. Bhagavan - 900 4. Dr. VI Hukkeri - 700 5. Dr. A. N. Koppad - 100 6. Dr. M. V. Poomachandra - 300 7. Dr. H. Veerabhadrappa - 700after counting, the Returning Officer declares three persons as being duly elected i. e. , Dr. C. N. Ashwath Narayan who had polled 1001 votes; Dr. B. G. Bhagvan 918 and Dr. V I Hukkeri 827. Dr. H Veerabhadrappa had polled 836 votes. ( 7 ) DR. Veerabhadrappa who wa sdefeated filed an election petition before the Chancellor of RGUHS for setting aside the election of the above mentioned elected candidates under Sec. 59 of the RGUHS Act solely on the ground that Dr. R. D. Desai who had exercised his francyhise did so on the ground that he was the acting principal of Vijaynagar Institute of Medical Sciences (VIMS for short ). Even though he was on leave on 5. 7. 2003, the date of election. He therefore, had no right to represent the Institution as its principal. His vote was considered for counting for declaring the results of the election. Therefore, the entire election was vitiated by the improper acceptance of his vote. ( 8 ) THE chancellor, after notice and enquiry, accepted Dr veerabhadrappas contention and by his order dated 8. 12. 2003, has declared that the vote cast by Dr. R. D. Desai is void and consequently set aside the notification dated 9. 7,2003 declaring the result of election and has directed a fresh election to be conducted. As stated, this order is under challenge. Heard Sri R. N Narasimha Murthy and Sri G. V. Shantharaju, learned Sr. Counsel for petitioners and Sri G. Visveshwara, learned Sr. counsel appearing for respondent Veerabhadrappa, Sri Krishna, appearing for RGUHS and the Government Advocate. ( 9 ) SRI R. N. Narashima Murthy, learned Sr. Counsel Submitted that un-disputably Dr. R. D. Desai was representing the institution as its Principal and was the member of the Senate by virtue of Sec 24 (10) (xvi) of the notification. Dr. counsel appearing for respondent Veerabhadrappa, Sri Krishna, appearing for RGUHS and the Government Advocate. ( 9 ) SRI R. N. Narashima Murthy, learned Sr. Counsel Submitted that un-disputably Dr. R. D. Desai was representing the institution as its Principal and was the member of the Senate by virtue of Sec 24 (10) (xvi) of the notification. Dr. Desai had only gone on leave on 5. 7. 2003 and after the expiry of leave has reported to duty. Coincidentally, during the period he was on leave, the election notification was issued, by merely going on leave he had not lost right to exercise his franchise as the principal of the institution. Hence, the reception of his vote by the Returning officer is not improper; he further submitted that under sec. 55 (2) of the RGUHS Act. , once Dr Desai becomes a member of the Senate on the ground he was the holder of a particular appointment, he shall holds the office of senate as long as he continues to be the in-charge principal and that the will not cease to be the in-charge principal by going on leave. It was also his submission that when Dr. Desai exercise his franchise wither the candidate Veerabhadrappa or any of his agent ever objected in which even Dr. Desais vote would have been treated as a disputed vote and the finding in that regard could have been given. Having not done so, he was not entitled to raise that ground. ( 10 ) SRI Shantharaju, learned Sr. Counsel while supporting the arguments of Sri R. N. Narashima Murthy, contended that in the absence of any procedure being laid down under the Act for the conducting of the elections, the general principles of Election Law has to be applied and it must be shown that the votes exercised by Dr. Desai was an invalid one. Both the learned counsel apart from the above contention, made a further submission that it was not merely sufficient for the Chancellor to have held that the vote of Dr. Desai was invalid but there must have been a further finding that by the reception of the said vote, the result of the election was materially affected. The chancellor has completely failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. ( 11 ) IN answer to the above contention Sri G. S. Vishveswara learned Sr. Desai was invalid but there must have been a further finding that by the reception of the said vote, the result of the election was materially affected. The chancellor has completely failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. ( 11 ) IN answer to the above contention Sri G. S. Vishveswara learned Sr. Counsel submitted that it was not within the knowledge of his client to know whether Dr. Desai had gone on leave on 5. 7. 2003 and someone else was appointed in place of Dr. Desai. Therefore, his client could not take any valid objection when Dr. Desai exercised his vote. He nextly submitted, the person entitled to vote on 5. 7. 2003 was The Head of the institution of Vijayanagar institute of Medical Sciences and not the particular individual. Whoever was not the Head of the institution on the day the election took place one could represent the institution and exercise the vote for and on behalf of the Institution and not in his individual capacity. In the facts of the presents case, admittedly, Dr. Desai had gone on Earned Leave from 16. 6. 2003 to 11. 7. 2003 and Dr. K. Nagaraj was appoints a sin charge principal pf the institution in his place during the said period. In the said circumstance, Dr. Desai could not have represented the institution and voted for and on behalf of the institution. The chancellor therefore was right in declaring his vote as invalid. ( 12 ) HE however, fairly conceded that the Chancellor should have given a finding that the result of the election has been materially affected by improper reception of the vote of Dr. Desai. but, then, in the system of preferential and transferable vote prescribed for counting of votes to the elections of the Syndicate, even improper reception of one vote will affect the entire results of the elections. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the chancellor can be supported by other reasons. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petitions. In the facts stated above, and the rival contentions raised, the only question that arise for consideration before this court is whether the chancellor was right in holding that the vote of Dr. Desai was invalid on the ground that he was on leave when he exercised the franchise. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petitions. In the facts stated above, and the rival contentions raised, the only question that arise for consideration before this court is whether the chancellor was right in holding that the vote of Dr. Desai was invalid on the ground that he was on leave when he exercised the franchise. Before answering the contentions raised, let me briefly refer to the relevant provision under the Act and the Statutes framed there under regarding the conduct of elections and trial of election disputes. As stated above, the only provision that deals with an election dispute is section 59 of the RGUHS Act which is extracted above. Apart from the said section, no other section is to be found in the Act dealing on the said subject. ( 13 ) UNIVERSITY has framed statues which provides for conduct of elections. Under statute 3, the Registrar of the university is obliged to maintain electoral rolls containing the names of all persons and the bodies to elect the members of the authorities including syndicate ). If there is any defect in the preparation of rolls under Statute 5, the Vice Chancellor is given the power to correct any wrongful inclusion or omission consequent on nomination or appointment brought to this notice. Since it has a bearing on the question involved in this case, the same is extracted herein for ready reference. St. 5. Corrections of Electoral Rolls: ( 14 ) THE Vice Chancellor shall have the authority to correct the electoral rolls if any omission or wrongful inclusion or need for deletion/addition consequent on nomination or appointment is brought to his notice before the last date fixed for receipt of nominations. No corrections shall be made after that date. Under statute 6, the electrol rolls prepared together with corrections shall be furnished to whomsoever who wants it on payment of certain charges. Statue 9 (2) (iii) authorities the Registrar to issue an election notification and also for issuing the calendar of events. Statute 16 provides for the manner in which polling has to take place. The said statute together with all clauses are extracted: st. 16: Procedure of election at a meeting: the polling shall take place by secret ballot on the day of the meeting of the election authority at the time fixed by the Vice Chancellor for the purpose. Statute 16 provides for the manner in which polling has to take place. The said statute together with all clauses are extracted: st. 16: Procedure of election at a meeting: the polling shall take place by secret ballot on the day of the meeting of the election authority at the time fixed by the Vice Chancellor for the purpose. All members present at the meeting shall be entitled to vote. No vote shall be given by proxy. Members present shall sign in the nominal electoral roll kept for the purpose as a record of voting at the election. ( 15 ) THE returning officer shall ascertain that the person desiring to vote is a member who has not already voted is a member who has not already voted and shall enter his name upon the counterfoil of the ballot paper in the ballot paper book obtaining signature on the counterfoil and shall then tear out the ballot paper corresponding to that counterfoil and hand it to the member. When a member has received a ballot paper, he shall proceed to place arranged for making the vote and shall record his vote by placing the figure in the space opposite the name of the candidate whom he votes. The figure 1 shall be placed opposite the name of the one candidate only; relative preference for the other candidates may be indicated by placing in the spaces opposite their names the figures 2, 3, 4, etc. in the order of preferences. ( 16 ) MARKING of ballot papers in ROMAN figures of writing numbers in words, like one, or two, or three etc. , shall not be treated as invalid provided the preferences indicated is clear. After the ballot paper are deposited in the ballot box kept for the purpose, the Returning Officer shall conduct the scrutiny with the help of scrutinizers nominated by the Chairman of the meeting from among those present. After the counting is over, the Returning Officer shall intimate to the Chairman the number of votes secured by each candidate and the chairman shall declare the result. Incase of equality of votes, success shall be determined by lot. Statue 17 (10) authorities the election officer to satisfy about the identity of the voter. After the counting is over, the Returning Officer shall intimate to the Chairman the number of votes secured by each candidate and the chairman shall declare the result. Incase of equality of votes, success shall be determined by lot. Statue 17 (10) authorities the election officer to satisfy about the identity of the voter. Statue 18 declares when a ballot paper is invalid which are on the grounds that the ballot paper does not bear the stamp of the university, among others. Under statute 19, the Returning officer is given the power to reject the ballot papers which are invalid. Statute 20 authorities a candidate or his representative to be present at the time of scrutiny of nomination and counting. Thus, a detailed procedure is prescribed regarding conducting of the election but, the Act or the Statutes are totally silent regarding the manner of filing an election dispute, the grounds on which the election can be set aside. ( 17 ) REVERTING to facts, there is no dispute prior to 16. 6. 2003 Dr Desai was representing the institution as its In-charge Principal and subsequent to termination of his leave period, he has again continued to represent the institution for purpose of representing the institution in the University as a senate member. Equally there is no dispute that the person who was placed in-charge during the interregnum when Desai was on leave and when the elections were held i. e. , Dr. K. Nagaraj, ever claimed to represent the institution and exercise franchise. Besides, the management of VIMS had not informed the Registrar of the University while the electoral roll was prepared stating that Dr. Desai will not represent the institution for voting but in his place, Dr. K. Nagaraj would do so which they were obliged to having regard to Statute 5 under which the electoral rolls could be corrected and under Statute 16, the identity of the person representing the VIMS would have been established. In my view, this is significant because the management of the VIMS had appointed Dr. Desai as In-charge Principal to represent it in the Senate and in the absence of any other communication it is clear that VIMS intention was that Dr. Desai alone should represent it during elections also. This reasoning of mine also gets support from annexure B under which leave was sanctioned to Dr. Desai and Dr. Desai as In-charge Principal to represent it in the Senate and in the absence of any other communication it is clear that VIMS intention was that Dr. Desai alone should represent it during elections also. This reasoning of mine also gets support from annexure B under which leave was sanctioned to Dr. Desai and Dr. K. Nagaraj was kept in charge. In the said sanctioning of the leave order, the management of VIMS has not indicated that during the period Dr. Desai goes on leave Dr. K. Nagaraj is also entitled to represent the university as a senate member and on that basis participate in the elections. ( 18 ) IN the same context, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of Sec. 55 (1) and (2) of the RGUHS Act relied on by Sri R. N. Narasimha Murthy, learned Sr. Counsel. Sec 55 (1) and (2) reads: s. 55. Vacating of office: any member other than an ex-officio members of any authority or body of the university may resign his office by a letter addressed to the registrar and the resignation shall take effect on receipt of their letter by the register. A person who is a member of any authority or body of the university in his capacity as a member of a particular authority or body or as the holder of a particular appointment, shall hold office so long only a she continues to be a member of that particular authority or body or the holder of that particular appointment as the case may be. ( 19 ) A close reading of Sec. 55 (2) and applying the said section to the facts, it is clear that if Dr. Desai was a senate member by virtue of the office he was holding i. e. , in-charge Principal of VIMS, he shall continue to be the Senate Member representing the institution as long as he is the holder of that appointment. Undisputedly, Dr. Desai was the holder of the appointment of In-charge Principal though incidentally he had gone on leaves during elections. In my view, unless he was removed from the said post or he vacated the said post or he lost the said post, he continues to be the holder of the said post notwithstanding that he had gone on leave either casual or earned during the time of elections. In my view, unless he was removed from the said post or he vacated the said post or he lost the said post, he continues to be the holder of the said post notwithstanding that he had gone on leave either casual or earned during the time of elections. The contention of Sri G. S. Visveshwara, learned sr. Counsel to meet this point is, that since Dr. Desai had gone on earned leave, he loses the right to hold the said post during the period he was on leave, consequently the right to represent the institution. In support of the said contention, no specific Rule was brought to my notice. However, two decisions of this court was referred to one is, C. M. Kushalappa vs. State of Mysore WP 1609 and 3380/70 decided on 16. 3. 1973 reported in Short Notes of recent decisions of My. LJ (1973) as item No. 5. The ratio of the said case is where a Government officer was put in charge of a higher office he could not perform any statutory functions. The second case is M Maridev vs. State of Mysore and Others 1968 (1) My. LJ 325. The ratio laid down in the said case is: ( 20 ) OFFICIATING appointments and in-charge arrangements are well understood terms in civil service. When an officer is appointed to officiate in a higher appointment, he is invested with the powers of the higher post, but when he is placed in charge of the current duties of vacant post in a higher appointment, whether in addition to his own or independently, he cannot exercise any of the statutory powers of the office, he can merely perform the day to day duties only. When an officer is placed in charge of the current duties of a vacant post in addition to his won, the consideration is not one of seniority as in the case of promotion but one of public interest. ( 21 ) THE said decisions are besides the point in issue and do not support the contention. Thus, what emerges form the above reasoning is, having regard to interpretation of Sec. 55 (2) of the RGUHS Act, the conduct of the Management of VIMS which did not prohibit Dr. Desai from continuing to represent it and in the absence of any statutory prohibition or otherwise, there leaves no room to doubt that Dr. Thus, what emerges form the above reasoning is, having regard to interpretation of Sec. 55 (2) of the RGUHS Act, the conduct of the Management of VIMS which did not prohibit Dr. Desai from continuing to represent it and in the absence of any statutory prohibition or otherwise, there leaves no room to doubt that Dr. Desai was competent to represent the VIMS as its incharge Principal and participate in the syndicate election by virtue of the said order. By his going on leave he has not lost the right to represent in the university as senate member during the period of leave. ( 22 ) ANOTHER important factor that requires to be noted is, as stated the RGUHS Act is silent as to the grounds under which an election can be challenged. Under the general election laws an election dispute can be filed only on statutory grounds. No voter or a person who contests the election can claim any other right other than what the statute confers. Even in such cases, the courts are very slow to interfere with the majority opinion unless a very strong case is made out having regard to the cost and time involves. But in the facts here when the statutes are silent regarding the grounds under which the elections could be set aside, it is not advisable to set aside the elections on such strained and doubtful reasons as contended by the election petitioner before the Chancellor having regard to the time and cost involved. ( 23 ) FROM the discussion stated above, the vote exercised by Dr. Desai cannot be holed to be an invalid vote when it was counted for declaring the result of the election. If Dr. Desais vote is held to be a valid one, the other points raised namely whether the result was materially affected, is unnecessary to be considered. The chancellor has failed to appreciate the above before passing the impugned order. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order of the chancellor is set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. --- *** --- .