Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1674 (RAJ)

Atul Singh Savant v. State of Rajasthan

2011-08-10

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the validity of Clause 8(vi) of the Guidelines/Circular dated 25th June, 2010 (Annex.3) issued by Education (Group-4), Department, Government of Rajasthan, imposing restriction on a student not to contest election of Student's Union more than once on the post of Office Bearer. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner has taken admission in the course of M.A. (Previous) in Public Administration subject for the academic session 2011-12. He intends to contest the Student Union Elections for the post of President in the upcoming Student Union Elections, which is going to be held on 20th August, 2011. Petitioner contested the election for the post of General Secretary in previous year i.e. 2010-11, the State Government has issued a circular prescribing eligibility criteria for candidates to contest elections under Clause 8, petitioner is not eligible to contest the forthcoming election of Student's Union in view of Clause 8(vi) of the Guidelines/Circular dated 25th June, 2010, therefore, petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the said eligibility criteria by way of Clause 8(vi) in the Circular, being arbitrary and discriminatory. 4. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that a similar eligibility criteria was there in Section 15 of the Constitution of the Rajasthan University Students Union 2010 and the validity of Section 15(c) was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Mukesh Kumar Bhakar v. University of Rajasthan & Ors. in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 9306/2011 decided on 26th July, 2011 and Division Bench of this Court held the provision of Section 15(c) as valid and not violative of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution or in any way illegal, arbitrary or unreasonable. He, therefore, submitted that present case is fully covered by Division Bench Judgment in Mukesh Kumar Bhakar's case and the writ petition be dismissed accordingly. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties. 6. He, therefore, submitted that present case is fully covered by Division Bench Judgment in Mukesh Kumar Bhakar's case and the writ petition be dismissed accordingly. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties. 6. For ready reference, the prayer of writ petition is reproduced as under:- "a. Quash and set aside the Clause 8(vi) of the circular/guidelines issued by the respondent no.1 restraining the petitioner from contesting the upcoming Student Union Elections for the session 2011-12; b. Allow the petitioner to participate and contest in the forthcoming Student Union Elections of University of Kota for the session 2011-12; c. Direct the respondents that the nomination form of the petitioner should not be rejected on the ground of his being the General Secretary of the Student Union in the previous academic session i.e. 2010-2011. d. any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner-applicant". 7. The provisions of Section 15(c) of the Constitution of the Rajasthan University Students Union 2010 is also reproduced as under:- "15(c) Provided that No student shall be allowed to contest for more than one post at a time and more than once for any post of the office bearers of the same Union any time; and not more than twice for the post of an Executive Member." 8. Clause 8(vi) of the Guidelines/instructions dated 25th June, 2010 is reproduced as under:- " mEehnokj ds ikl inkf/kdkjh ds in ds fy, pquko yM+us dk volj ,d gksxk vkSj dk;Zdkjh lnL; ds ij ij pquko yM+us gsrq nks volj gksaxsA " 9. The above provisions make it clear that the provisions of Clause 8(vi) of the Guidelines are similar with Section 15(c). 10. The relevant portions/paras of Mukesh Kumar Bhakar's case (supra) are reproduced as below:- "..No doubt about it that the directive issued by the Apex Court in University of Kerala (1) (supra) on 22.9.2006 has been referred to the Larger Bench vide subsequent order dated 11.11.2009 passed in the same case of University of Kerala reported in (2010) 1 SCC 353 , however, the Larger Bench has not so far answered the reference made and the directions issued by the Apex Court on 22.9.2006 in University of Kerala (supra) have not been withdrawn as yet. Consequently, the provision of Article 15(c) of the Constitution of the Students' Union cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any manner. It is based upon the recommendation No.6.5.6 of the Lyngdoh Committee, which has been directed to be implemented by the Apex Court, the same is binding upon the State and Universities. Thus, provision of Article 15(c) cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or unreasonable. Examining the submissions on merits also, we are of the considered opinion that the provision of Article 15(c) has been framed with the objective that though the democratic process of election of Students' Union may take place in the Universities but at the same time, it is not made the routine of the students to contest the election more than once. The restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable or destructive of the rights to contest election. It is regulatory measure. Reasonable restriction can always be imposed with respect to the elections of Students' Union. Right to contest election cannot be claimed as fundamental right. It is statutory right and can be subjected to certain conditions. There are instances when students have made it business to contest the elections time and again. They do not want to pass out of Universities merely for the sake of contesting elections and to contest again and again vitiating entire atmosphere of educational institutions in which objective is different. It is in order to get rid of such vices and also that students should concentrate mainly on studies and they should not make contesting election of students union as their main business in in the Colleges, the provision appears to have been carved out. It cannot be said to be unreasonable, illegal and arbitrary in any manner nor can be said to be unconstitutional or violative of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. "For the reasons mentioned above, the provision contained in Article 15 (c) of the Constitution of the Students' Union cannot in any manner be said to be arbitrary or illegal or unconstitutional or violative of fundamental right of the petitioner, rather it appears to have been made to ensure that students concentrate more on studies and not to treat the election as their main business in the Universities and to create good academic and disciplined scenario and healthy educational atmosphere in the Universities. Thus, as a matter of fact, the provision seems to be in the interest of students as a whole. Apart from this, the provision has been made pursuant to the directives of the Apex Court and same is in conformity with the report of the Lyngdoh Committee. It does not in any manner infringe any of the right of the petitioner much less fundamental right. It is within the domain of the University to make the provision in question and power has been exercised well within the framework of law and it does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. Hence, no case is made out so as to interfere with the provision in question in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves dismissal and it is hereby dismissed. No costs." 11. The Division Bench of this Court considered the provision of Section 15(c) and held that it is not illegal, arbitrary or unreasonable in any manner, nor it can be said to be unconstitutional or violative of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India and present case is fully covered by aforesaid decision of Division Bench. 12. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******