ORDER In all these cases, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Chancellor of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences dated 3-10-2006, whereby the election to the Senate of the University from Teachers other than the Professors Constituency was set aside and the University was directed to hold fresh elections from the said constituency in accordance with law. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore (for short, 'University) issued a calendar of events for election of members to the Senate from 'amongst Teachers other than Professors' as per clause (xii) of Section 21(1) of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Ace). The calendar of events was notified on 3-6-2006. As many as 15 teachers filed their nomination papers for the election to the membership of the Senate from 'Teachers other than Professors' constituency. Five teachers were required to be elected to the Senate from the said Constituency. The election was held in accordance with the system of single proportional representations by means of single transferable vote. The election was held on 5-7-2006. All the petitioners were declared elected as members of the Senate. Some of the defeated candidates in the election filed election disputes before the Chancellor of the University under Section 59 of the Act. The Chancellor by the impugned order has set aside the election and directed the University to hold a fresh election in accordance with law. 3. I have heard Sri D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Sri L.M. Chidanandaiah, Sri S.M. Chandrashekar, learned Advocates for the petitioners and Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate and Sri VA. Mohan Rangam, learned Advocate for the respondents. 4. Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the Chancellor is without jurisdiction and ultra vires of the power conferred on him. It is contended that the Chancellor has obtained certain material such as register of attendance from a college, which was made the basis for holding against the petitioners. The material collected behind their back has been made use of against them. The petitioners were not granted an opportunity to present their case in this regard. Thus, the impugned order is opposed to the principles of natural justice. The material collected behind their back has been made use of against them. The petitioners were not granted an opportunity to present their case in this regard. Thus, the impugned order is opposed to the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the Chancellor has erred in holding that Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar is not a full-time Teacher at M.V.J. Medical College, Hosakote. It is contended that he continued to be Teacher in M.V.J. Medical College during the relevant point of time though he was deputed to Karnataka Health System Development and Reform Project (for short, 'KHSDP') for a short term. He submits that the word 'deputation' in the context cannot be the same as understood in Service Law Jurisprudence. He had retained lien at M.V.J. Medical College, Hosakote. Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar was giving instructions on a full-time basis at M.V.J. Medical College even when he was on deputation to KHSDP. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in S.N. Chandrashekar and Another v State of Karnataka and Others!. He has drawn my attention to the paragraph 34 of the said decision .and submits that an error of law has crept in into the decision making process of the Chancellor, when the Chancellor has posed a wrong question for himself. Thus, the order requires to be quashed and the matter requires reconsideration by the Chancellor. 5. Sri S.M. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 14070 of 2006 submits that having regard to the Statute 5 of the Statutes relating to election to authorities of the University, election petition itself was not maintainable. It is submitted that the Chancellor has proceeded under erroneous presumption that the validity of electoral rolls can be gone into, even though it was not the subject-matter of election dispute. It is further submitted that the contesting respondents were acquiesced of the alleged inclusion of the bogus voters in the voters' list and without raising any objection before the election, it has been made as their grievance in the election dispute. This is opposed to the doctrine of acquiescence. It is further contended that at any rate the validity of the inclusion of Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar as a voter and his declaration as a Senate Member will not vitiate the election of Dr. Shivanand Bhimalli (petitioner in W.P. No. 14070 of 2006). 6. This is opposed to the doctrine of acquiescence. It is further contended that at any rate the validity of the inclusion of Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar as a voter and his declaration as a Senate Member will not vitiate the election of Dr. Shivanand Bhimalli (petitioner in W.P. No. 14070 of 2006). 6. On the other hand, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for private respondents has supported the order of the Chancellor. It is submitted that it is only a teacher giving instructions on full-time basis in a College or in an Institution of Health Sciences can contest the election from "Teachers other than Professors" constituency. He submits that Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar was appointed as a Health Insurance Consultant on a contract basis for six months in KHSDP on 20-2-2006. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 30,000/- as a consultant from KHSDP. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a teacher giving instructions on full-time basis at M.V.J. Medical College. He was terminated on 22-7-2006. In other words, during the academic year in question, he was not giving instructions at M.V.J. Medical College on full-time basis. It is further contended that 30% of the ballot papers were found to be invalid. Thus, the entire election process has materially affected. In an election in accordance with the system of single transferable vote, it is very difficult to say how the voting would have gone and who would have got eliminated. It is not possible to predict what would have been the voting pattern if the electors knew at the time of election that Dr. H. G. Vijaya Kumar was not qualified to contest the election. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P. No. 14070 of 2006 cannot be declared as elected. It is further contended that since 30% of the ballot papers were invalid, the entire election process has materially affected. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the following decisions.- (a) Birad Mal Singhvi v Anand Purohit; (b) Thiru John v Returning Officer and Others; (c) K. Venkatachalam v A. Swamickan and Another. 7. Sri VA. Mohan Rangam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-University has supported the order of the Chancellor. He submits that many ballot papers were without the authorised stamp of the University. He has secured the sealed box containing unstamped but unused ballot papers. 7. Sri VA. Mohan Rangam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-University has supported the order of the Chancellor. He submits that many ballot papers were without the authorised stamp of the University. He has secured the sealed box containing unstamped but unused ballot papers. The sealed box was opened in the open Court and unstamped ballot papers were submitted to the Court for perusal. It is seen that the ballot papers used and counted are not stamped. 8. In the light of the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the Chancellor requires interference in exercise of the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') came into force with effect from 18-3-1996. The object by the Act was to establish and incorporate a University for the purpose of ensuring proper and systematic instructions, teaching and research in modern medicines and Indian Systems of Medicines in the State Karnataka. Chapter 4 of the Act provides for Constitution of Authorities of the University. Section 21 of the Act provides for constitution of the Senate of the University. Clause (xii) of Section 21(1) deals with election of five members to the Senate from 'Teachers other than Professors' Constituency. It is as under: "21. The Senate.-(1) The Senate, shall consist of the following members, namely.- (i) ........... (xii) Five teachers, other than Professors elected from amongst themselves;" . The expression 'Teachers' has been defined in clause (m) of Section 2 of the Act. It is as under: "(m) "Teachers" includes Professors, Readers, Assistant Professors, Lecturers and such other persons giving instruction on full time basis in a college or institution of health sciences". 10. Chancellor is one of the Officers of the University. The Governor of Karnataka by virtue of his office is the Chancellor of the University which is clear from Section 10 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 10 states that the Chancellor shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred upon him by or under the Act or the Statutes. 11. Section 59 of the Act provides for resolution of the disputes relating to elections or nominations to any Authority of the University or other body of the University. 11. Section 59 of the Act provides for resolution of the disputes relating to elections or nominations to any Authority of the University or other body of the University. It is as under: "Section 59. 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 thereon shall be final". 12. Chapter V of the Act lays down procedure of making Statutes, Ordinances and Rules. Clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act provides for making of Statutes governing the procedure of election to the Authorities and the procedure to be followed at meetings of Authorities, including stipulation of quorum for transaction of business, where such stipulations are not already made under Act. In accordance with the said provision, Statutes relating to elections to the Authorities of the University (for short, 'the Statutes') have been made by the University. The said statutes have received the assent of the Chancellor on 29-10-1997. The statutes have been notified vide No. ACA/STT-6/97-98, dated 3-11-1997. 13. Clause (i) of Statutes 1 defines "Teachers" as under: "(i) "Teachers" means full-time teachers employed, in a University Department, University College or an affiliated college". Statute 3 - lays down the procedure for maintenance of electoral rolls. Clause (2) of Statute 3 states that all teachers who are appointed on a full-time basis and who have requisite qualifications to be a teacher as per statute by bodies or Government or University shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll of the respective constituency. Statute 5 lays down the procedure for corrections of electoral rolls which is as under: "Statute 5. Corrections of Electoral Rolls.-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". Corrections of Electoral Rolls.-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". As per Statute 8, Vice-Chancellor shall have the power to fix the time limit for filing nominations and withdrawal of nominations, to fix the date of elections, to order the holding of elections in anticipation of vacancies about to occur by efflux of time. Statute 9 provides the procedure for issuing the Election Notifications. Clause (5) of Statute 9 states that all elections to the authorities of the University shall be by personal ballot in accordance with the system of single proportional representation by means of single transferable vote. Statute 12 provides for scrutiny of nominations. Clause (3) of Statute 12 states are under: "In case of dispute about the decision as to the validity or otherwise of any nomination, the matter may be referred to the Vice-Chancellor or in his absence a Dean of the faculty as designated by Vice-Chancellor whose decision shall be final". 14. As noticed above, the University has issued a Notification No. UA/SEN/ELEC. 03/2006/07, dated 3-6-2006, for election of members to the Senate from the Constituency of Professors and Teachers other than Professors. The relevant portion of the notification is as under: Date Time (i) Last date and hour set for Thursday 2.00 P.M. receipt of Nominations 15-6-2006 (ii) Date and time set for scrutiny Thursday 4.00 P.M. of Nominations. 15-6-2006 (iii) Last date and hour set for Monday 3.00 P.M. withdrawal 19-6-2006 (iv) Date of Election and the hours Wednesday 10.00 AM. to of voting by personal ballot 5-7 -2006 5.00 P.M. The election was held on 5-7-2006. The result of the election was declared on 8-7-2006. Five candidates were declared to have been elected to the Senate of the University from the constituency of 'Teachers other than Professors'. They are: 1. Dr. Shivanand S. Bhimalli 2. Dr. Shivaprasad M.S. 3. Dr. Bharath Shetty Y. 4. Dr. Vijaya Kumar H.G. 5. Dr. Ravindra B. The details of the votes secured by the candidates and the results of the election from the Constituency of 'Teachers other than Professors' is as under: SI. They are: 1. Dr. Shivanand S. Bhimalli 2. Dr. Shivaprasad M.S. 3. Dr. Bharath Shetty Y. 4. Dr. Vijaya Kumar H.G. 5. Dr. Ravindra B. The details of the votes secured by the candidates and the results of the election from the Constituency of 'Teachers other than Professors' is as under: SI. Name of the Total first Total subsequent Total Remarks No. Candidate preferen- preferential votes votes tial secured secured votes 1. Bharath Shetty Y. 666 340 1006 Delared elected III in 10th Round 2. Bhusanurmath 531 94 625 Eliminated in X in Rajashekar 10th Round 3. Krishnappa N. 384 206 590 Eliminated IX in 10th Round 4. Natashekara M. 233 4 237 Eliminated II in 3rd Round 5. Paramesh S. 357 76 433 Eliminated VII in 9th Round 6. Purushotham K. 324 80 404 Eliminated VII in 8th Round 7. Ramesh M.K. 268 10 278 Eliminated III in 4th Round 8. Ravinder B. 486 239 725 Declared elected V in 10th Round 9. Sachidanand Rai B. 329 27 356 Eliminated V in 6th Round 10. Sanjeev G.M. 298 25 323 Eliminated IV in 5th Round 11. Shivanand S. 753 256 1029 Declared elected 1st in 10th Round 12. Shivaprasad M.S. 650 379 1029 Declared elected II in 10th Round 13. Srikanth H.M. 92 — 92 Eliminated I in 2nd Round 14. Vijayanath Itigi 362 36 398 Eliminated VI in 7th Round 15. Vijaykumar H.G. 438 342 780 Elected IV in 10th Round 15. The contesting respondents filed election petitions before the Chancellor under Section 59 of the Act. The petitioners have filed their objections to the election petitions. On the basis of the pleadings, the Chancellor has framed the following points for consideration.- (i) Whether the petition is maintainable, and if so whether the undersigned has got jurisdiction? (ii) Whether the 5th respondent-Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar was eligible to be elected from Teachers' Constituency as Member of the Senate of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science? (iii) Whether it is true that electoral rolls were not supplied in time? (iv) Whether the petitioner proves that out of 10,500 voters for teachers other than Professors i.e., Teachers' Constituency, there were only about 7,000 eligible voters? (v) Whether the petitioner proves that bogus I.D. Cards, were issued to enable fictitious persons to exercise franchise in the election held on 5-7 -2006? (iv) Whether the petitioner proves that out of 10,500 voters for teachers other than Professors i.e., Teachers' Constituency, there were only about 7,000 eligible voters? (v) Whether the petitioner proves that bogus I.D. Cards, were issued to enable fictitious persons to exercise franchise in the election held on 5-7 -2006? (vi) Whether the petitioner proves that University stamp was not affixed on nearly 30% of ballot papers in violation of Statute? (vii) Whether election is vitiated, and if so to what extent? The Chancellor has answered Point No. (i) - in the affirmative, Point Nos. (ii) and (iii) - in the negative, Point No. (iv) - partly affirmative, Point No. (v) - negative, Point No. (vi) - partly affirmative and Point No. (vii) - in the affirmative. 16. Learned Counsel for the parties do not dispute the maintainability of the election petition before the Chancellor. They also do not challenge the correctness of the answers given to Point Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The contest is only insofar as the findings on Ponit No.2, Point No.6 and Point No.7. 17. Let me consider as to whether Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar was eligible to contest the election to the Senate from the constituency of 'Teachers other than Professors'. In order to qualify to contest in the election from 'Teachers other than Professors' constituency, a candidate should be a teacher, giving full-time instruction on a full-time basis. Teach includes, Professors, Lecturers, Assistant Lecturers and such other persons giving instructions on full-time basis in a college or institution of health sciences. A teacher means full-time teacher employed in a University Department, University College or an affiliated College. It is not in dispute that M.V.J. Medical College is an affiliated College of the University. Dr. Vijaya Kumar was appointed as a teacher at M.V.J. Medical College on 15-4-2005 in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-125-13500 inclusive of admissible allowances. The appointment letter also shows that he will be on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining and he should not leave the job in the middle of the academic year. In case, he desires to relinquish the job, he should give three months notice or in lieu thereon surrender three months salary. However, he will not be permitted to leave the institution in the middle of the academic year. In case, he desires to relinquish the job, he should give three months notice or in lieu thereon surrender three months salary. However, he will not be permitted to leave the institution in the middle of the academic year. Admittedly, he was appointed as Health Insurance Consultant on contract basis for six months in Karnataka Health System Development Project from 20-2-2006. At the time of reporting Dr. Vijaya Kumar had submitted in writing that he was not working at M.V.J. Medical College, Hosakote. By a Government Order dated 22-7-2006 he was discontinued from the services as a Consultant of KHSDP. The Government Order dated 22-7-2006 discontinuing Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar as a Consultant at KHSDP is as under: "PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA Sub.: Discontinuation of services of Health Insurance Consultant in KHSDP - Reg. Read: G.O. No. HFW(PR) 97 WBA 2005, dated 18-4-2006. Preamble: Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar was appointed as Health Insurance Consultant on a contract basis for six months in Karnataka Health System Development Project from 20-2-2006 subject to certain terms and conditions vide G.O. No. HFW (PR) 97 WBA 2005, dated 18-4-2006 under the proposed World Bank assisted project. During his interview, it was made very clear to him that it is a full-time responsibility. The terms and conditions also reflected the nature of complete commitment to the job of Health Insurance Consultant. Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar reported for duty on 20-2-2006, and was made fully aware of the tasks and assignments, to be taken up and completed before the launch of the World Bank assisted Karnataka Health System Development and Reform Project, in particular the necessity to undertake travel across the State and examine health insurance scheme, in order to prepare a sound base for the implementation of Health Insurance. At the time of reporting Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar submitted in writing that he was not working at M.V.J. Medical College. However, it was brought to the notice of this office on 7-7-2006 that Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar is a faculty of M.V.J. Medical College, Hosakote, Bangalore (Rural) and that he has contested the Senate Elections of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences in the other than Professors Category. However, it was brought to the notice of this office on 7-7-2006 that Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar is a faculty of M.V.J. Medical College, Hosakote, Bangalore (Rural) and that he has contested the Senate Elections of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences in the other than Professors Category. In view of this, information was sought from M.V.J. Medical College (vide letters dated 10-7-2006 and 14-7-2006) and they have certified the facts of his working in their college and also that he has drawn salary there even after the date of his reporting at KHSDP as a Consultant. This Office also sought an explanation from Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar as to whether he is on the faculty of M.V.J. Medical College as alleged in the complaint. Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar has not admitted that he is a full-time faculty member (lecturer) at M. V.J. Medical College, Hos kote. He further says that he had obtained pennission from his institution to 'depute' him to KHSDP for a short-tenn basis to gain experience. The fact whether he had obtained permission of his college authorities is not relevant. The relevant point is that Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar has deliberately suppressed facts about his being in employment elsewhere. His written bio-data submitted at the time of interview and his oral submissions that he does not work anywhere else are now found to be incorrect. Meanwhile, Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar has voluntarily sought to withdraw his services as a Consultant in KHSDP vide his letter dated 19-7-2006. In the light of the above mentioned facts, it is considered necessary to discontinue the services of Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar, Health Insurance Consultant, Karnataka Health System Development Project with immediate effect, hence the following order: Government Order No. HFW (PR) 11 WBA 2006, Bangalore, dated 22-7-2006 In super-session of Government Order read at (1) above, Government deems it fit to discontinue with immediate effect the services of Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar, Consultant, Karnataka Health System Development Project who was appointed on 20-2-2006 for a contractual period of six months. He is further asked to hand over the official documents and records immediately. By order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka Sd/- (SUSHMA GODBOLE) Deputy Secretary to Government, Karnataka Health Systems Development Project, Bangalore". 18. H.G. Vijaya Kumar, Consultant, Karnataka Health System Development Project who was appointed on 20-2-2006 for a contractual period of six months. He is further asked to hand over the official documents and records immediately. By order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka Sd/- (SUSHMA GODBOLE) Deputy Secretary to Government, Karnataka Health Systems Development Project, Bangalore". 18. It is clear from the aforesaid order that at the time of his appointment, it was made clear to him that the consultants job is a fulltime responsibility. It is also not in dispute that the remuneration paid to him for the aforesaid job was Rs. 30,000/- per month. While joining the KHSDP, he had suppressed the fact that he was working at M.V.J. Medical College. Admittedly, Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar has not challenged the aforesaid order of the State Government. It is thus clear that he was working as a Consultant with KHSDP during the relevant point of time. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the attendance register of the College secured by the Chancellor shows that the petitioner has also worked as Teacher at M.V.J. Medical College during the said period. Perusal of the attendance register shows that he has worked for certain days in a month in the College. The Chancellor in his order has noticed this fact. But the fact remains that he was not a full-time Teacher in the College. He was working in KHSDP from 20-2-2006 to 22-7-2006. He could not have given full-time instructions in : the College as a Teacher as he was working as a full-time Health j Insurance Consultant in KHSDP during the said period. 19. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue that the Chancellor has obtained certain materials such as attendance register from College and that the petitioners were not given an opportunity in this regard. Its true that the material obtained by the Chancellor was not put to the petitioners. However, even without looking into the attendance register obtained from M.V.J. Medical College, it is very clear from the aforesaid Government Order that Dr. Vijaya Kumar was not a full-time teacher in the College. Therefore, the Chancellor was right in holding that Dr. Its true that the material obtained by the Chancellor was not put to the petitioners. However, even without looking into the attendance register obtained from M.V.J. Medical College, it is very clear from the aforesaid Government Order that Dr. Vijaya Kumar was not a full-time teacher in the College. Therefore, the Chancellor was right in holding that Dr. Vijaya Kumar was not a teacher within the definition of Section 2(m) of the Act and was ineligible to be elected as a member of the Senate of the University from 'Teachers other than Professors' constituency. The decision relied on by Sri Nanjunda Reddy in the case of S.N. Chandrashekar is not applicable to the facts of this case. 20. The next question for consideration is with regard to validity of ballot papers which did not bear the authorised seal of the University. Statute 18 of the Statutes states that a ballot paper is invalid when it does not .bear the authorised stamp of the University. The Chancellor while dealing with this question has' observed that the University has not specifically denied this contention before him in the petition filed under Section 59 of the Act. When the matter was being heard, I directed the learned Counsel for the University to secure the sealed box containing unstamped but used ballot papers. The sealed box was opened in the open Court in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties and unstamped ballot papers were submitted for the perusal of the Court. This Court has passed an order on 26-2-2007 which is as under: "As directed by this Court Sri Mohan Hangam, learned Counsel. appearing for the respondent-University has secured the sealed box containing unstamped but used ballot papers. The sealed box was opened in the open Court and the unstamped ballot papers are submitted to the Court for perusal. An affidavit is also filed to that effect. It is seen that the ballot papers used and counted are not stamped. The ballot papers are also shown to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties". It is thus clear that invalid ballot papers have been used for the purpose of holding an election, which is a clear violation of Statute 18(i) of the Statutes. Thus, the entire election process has materially effected due to use of invalid ballot papers. 21. The ballot papers are also shown to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties". It is thus clear that invalid ballot papers have been used for the purpose of holding an election, which is a clear violation of Statute 18(i) of the Statutes. Thus, the entire election process has materially effected due to use of invalid ballot papers. 21. The next question to be considered is whether the correctness of the electoral roll can be considered in a petition filed under Section 59 of the Act. Clause (3) of Statute 3 makes it clear that a voter in the election in question should also be a teacher as defined under the Act and the statute. Statute 5 of the Statutes provides for correction of the electoral roll. It states that 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. It also states that no corrections shall be made after that date. The name of Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar was already included in the electoral rolls as a teacher. In order to vote in the election or contest the election, the qualification is the same i.e., he should be a teacher. Insofar as electoral rolls are concerned, inclusion of Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar's name has become final. The point for consideration is whether the same question can be agitated before the Chancellor under Section 59 of the Act? 22. I have already taken a view that Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar does not qualify to be a teacher as defined under clause (m) of Section 2 of the Act because he was not a full-time teacher in M.V.J. Medical College and Hospital, Hosakote during the relevant point of time. Therefore, his name should not have been included in the electoral rolls. Statute 5 is meant for correction of electoral rolls by the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor ought to have deleted the name of Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar from the electoral rolls. However, even if a name is wrongfully included in the electoral rolls, there is no bar in the Act or the Statutes to consider the same issue in an election petition. The purpose of Section 59 of the Act is entirely different. The Vice-Chancellor ought to have deleted the name of Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar from the electoral rolls. However, even if a name is wrongfully included in the electoral rolls, there is no bar in the Act or the Statutes to consider the same issue in an election petition. The purpose of Section 59 of the Act is entirely different. The bar in Statute 5 is not to correct the electoral rolls after the last date fixed for receipt of nominations. An ineligible person should not be made a member of the academic body of the University like the Senate, which is responsible for making policies of the University. I am of the considered view that even if an objection was not raised for inclusion of a person in the electoral rolls, there can be no bar for raising an election dispute later on. An election dispute cannot be decided on concessions contrary to law. (See Jibontara Ghatowar v Sarbananda Sonowal and Others). 23. There is no material placed before the Vice-Chancellor of the University at the time of finalising the electoral rolls that Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar was not eligible to be included in the electoral rolls. Therefore, his name was included in the electoral rolls. In the absence of any material before the Vice-Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor has included the name of Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar in the electoral rolls. But his decision is not final in an election petition under Section 59 of the Act. It is open for the concerned parties to show that inclusion of the name of Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar in the electoral rolls is a wrongful inclusion. 24. In the case of Birad Mal Singhvi, the Apex Court was considering a similar question. In that case, the Court was considering the election of one Anand Purohit who was elected in the election of the State Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan which was held during the year 1985. The appellant therein was an elector in the Jodhpur City Constituency. It was contended that the nomination papers of three candidates was wrongfully rejected which has resulted materially affecting the election on account of improper rejection of the nomination papers. The said plea was raised in the election petition by the elector. The said objection was not raised at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers by any party. It was contended that the nomination papers of three candidates was wrongfully rejected which has resulted materially affecting the election on account of improper rejection of the nomination papers. The said plea was raised in the election petition by the elector. The said objection was not raised at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers by any party. In that connection, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any material before the Returning Officer, the Returning Officer was not wrong in taking the entries in the electoral roll into consideration and acting on them. But his decision is not final. In an election petition, it is open to an election petitioner to place cogent evidence before the High Court to show that the candidates whose nomination papers was rejected had in fact attained the age of 25 years on the relevant date and it is open to the High Court to take a final decision in the matter notwithstanding the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination papers. It has been further held as under: "If on the basis of the material placed before the High Court it is proved that the candidate whose nomination paper had been rejected was qualified to contest the election it is open to the High Court to set aside the election. Enquiry during scrutiny is summary in nature as there is no scope for any elaborate enquiry at that stage. Therefore, it is open to a party to place fresh or additional material before the High Court to show that the Returning Officer's order rejecting the nomination paper was improper. It should be borne in mind that the proceedings in an election petition are not in the nature of appeal against the order of the Returning Officer. It is an original proceeding". 25. In the present case also, the proceedings before the Chancellor under Section 59 of the Act is an original proceedings and not an appeal. Therefore, it is open to an election petitioner to place cogent evidence before the Chancellor to show that the candidate whose name has been included in the electoral rolls and has contested the election was in fact not eligible to be enrolled as a 'teacher' by producing cogent material before the Chancellor. Therefore, it is open to an election petitioner to place cogent evidence before the Chancellor to show that the candidate whose name has been included in the electoral rolls and has contested the election was in fact not eligible to be enrolled as a 'teacher' by producing cogent material before the Chancellor. It is open to the Chancellor to take a final decision in the matter notwithstanding the inclusion of the name of a candidate in the electoral rolls. The enquiry during the scrutiny by the Vice-Chancellor under Statute 5 is summary in nature as there is no scope for any elaborate enquiry at that stage. It is open to the party to place fresh or additional material before the Chancellor to show that inclusion of the name of a candidate in the electoral rolls was improper. Therefore, the Chancellor is justified in holding that Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar was ineligible to contest the election as he is not a 'teacher' as defined in the Act and the Statutes. 26. The last contention of Sri S.M. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel is that even if Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar's election is held to be invalid, it will not vitiate the election of Dr. Shivanand B., the petitioner in W.P. No. 1400 of 2006. He submits that Dr. Shivanand may be continued as a member of the Senate. This argument is again fallacious. As stated above, the election to the Senate of the University was by personal ballot in accordance with the system of single proportional representation by means of single transferable vote. The petitioners were elected in the 10th round of counting. It is not the case of the petitioners that the electors who have voted Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar had the knowledge of his disqualification. They must have been under the impression that Dr. H.G. Vijaya Kumar has the eligibility to contest the election. If the electors had the notice of his disqualification how many of them would have voted for him and how many voters would have voted in favour of Dr. Shivanand B. and in what preferential order remains a question in the realm of speculation and unpredictability. 27. The Apex Court in Thiru John's case was considering a similar question. In that case the votes polled in favour of one Sri John who has been found by the Court that he was statutorily disqualified to contest the election. Shivanand B. and in what preferential order remains a question in the realm of speculation and unpredictability. 27. The Apex Court in Thiru John's case was considering a similar question. In that case the votes polled in favour of one Sri John who has been found by the Court that he was statutorily disqualified to contest the election. The question was whether the other candidates should have got to vote of Sri John. In that context, the Apex Court has held as under: "Again, the answer to this question, in our opinion, must be in the negative. It is nobody's case that the electors who voted for Sri John, had at the time of election, knowledge or notice of the statutory disqualification of this candidate. On the contrary, they must have been under the impression that Sri John was a candidate whose nomination had been validly accepted by the Returning Officer. Had the electors notice of Sri John's disqualification, how many of them would have voted for him and how many for the other continuing candidates, including Sarvshri Subrahmanyam and Mohana Rangam, and in what preferential order, remains a question in the realm of speculation and unpredictability. xxx xxx xxx The ratio decidendi of Vishwanatha Reddy v Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda and Another, AIR 1969 SC 604 : (1969)1 SCJ 818, is applicable only where (a) there are two contesting candidates and one of them is disqualified; (b) and the election is or the basis of single non-transferable vote. Both these conditions do not exist in the present case. As already discussed, Sri Subrahmanyam appellant was not the sole surviving continuing candidate left in the field, after exclusion of the disqualified candidate, Sri John. The election in question was not held by mode of single transferable vote, according to which, a simple majority of votes secured ensues the success of a candidate, but by proportional representation with single transferable vote, under which system the success of a candidate normally depends on his securing the requisite quota". Therefore, the arguments of the learned Counsel that Dr. Shivanand B. should be declared to have been elected is rejected. 28. Having given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties, I do not fine any merit in these writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs.