Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2272 (RAJ)

Jagdish Chandra Gurjar v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-08-18

KULDEEP MATHUR, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Jagdish Chandra Gurjar seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the effect and operation of Clause 7(a)(ii) of the Constitution of Mohan Lal Sukhadia University Students' Union 2022-23 may kindly be declared ultra vires being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to allow/permit the petitioner to contest election of Research Representative of Mohan Lal Sukhadia University Students' Union Elections-2022-23 scheduled to be held on 26.08.2022 by providing up to two years upper age relaxation." 2. Learned counsel Shri Sukesh Bhati, representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently contended that the Clause 7(a)(ii) of the Constitution of University & College Students' Union 2022-23 of Mohan Lal Sukhadia University (hereinafter referred to as 'Constitution of MLSU 2022-23') is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional inasmuch as it curtails the rights of the students to contest election for the post of Research Representative after crossing the age of 28 years. He submits that elections were not held for the Research Representatives for the previous two years owing to the Covid pandemic and thus, the relaxation provided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of in Re: cognizance for extension of limitation (Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in suo motu Writ Petition (c) No. 3 of 2020), deserves to be applied to the forthcoming students election. The said upper age limit deserves to be extended and for this purpose, the upper age eligibility criterion under Clause 7(a)(ii) of the Constitution of MLSU 2022-23 should be struck down. 3. In support of his contentions, Shri Bhati has placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of University of Kerala v. Council, Principals, Colleges, Kerala and Ors. [ (2011) 14 SCC 363 ] and urges that in the said judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court approved the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee, wherein it has been recommended that the maximum age limit for which the students can legitimately contest the elections should be enhanced to 30 years. [ (2011) 14 SCC 363 ] and urges that in the said judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court approved the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee, wherein it has been recommended that the maximum age limit for which the students can legitimately contest the elections should be enhanced to 30 years. He urges that the situation in the present scenario is very harsh because the elections were not held for the previous two years owing to the Covid pandemic and thus, the age relaxation is required to be extended and consequently, a provisional direction be issued to permit the petitioner, who is presently aged about 28 years, to contest the election for the Research Representative post. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Shri Rajesh Punia and Shri Himanshu Shrimali, representing the respondents, vehemently and fervently contended that there is no vested legal or fundamental right of the petitioner to contest the election. They drew the Court's attention to the order dated 31.07.2013 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shrikant Shrivastava v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8951/2013 decided on 31.07.2013], wherein an exactly similar clause of age limit as was prevailing in the Constitution of Students' Union at the relevant point of time was approved after taking into account the judgment in the case of University of Kerala (supra). 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar. 6. The relevant clause 7(a)(ii) of the Constitution of MLSU 2022-23 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- "7. a. ii. For Research Representative the maximum age limit to legitimately contest an election would be 28 years and they can contest election only for Research Representative of the Apex/Central Students' Union provided they have deposited requisite fee in the University." 7. We are of the firm view that every student admitted into a College/University does not have fundamental right to contest the Student Body elections. The Constitution of MLSU 2022-23 provides the broad guidelines, under which the students can be allowed to participate in the elections. These guidelines cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or onerous in any manner whatsoever. We are of the firm view that every student admitted into a College/University does not have fundamental right to contest the Student Body elections. The Constitution of MLSU 2022-23 provides the broad guidelines, under which the students can be allowed to participate in the elections. These guidelines cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or onerous in any manner whatsoever. Putting an upper age limit for the elections to the students' bodies is a very healthy practice because it allows the younger students to take part in the election activities while restricting those who have been in the system for a prolonged period. So far as the aspect of the COVID pandemic and the directions for extension of time given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Re: cognizance for extension of limitation (supra), suffice it to say that these extensions were in relation to the filing of cases in the Courts, which is a statutory right of the litigants who were prevented from approaching the Courts owing to the COVID 19 pandemic situation and thus, the limitations provided in the statutes for filing cases were extended. There cannot be any equivalence in the matter of age limit for contesting the students' election and the limitation provided for filing cases in the Courts. The latter right is exercised under the statutory provisions and if such a right is defeated owing to "vis major", the Courts always step forward for protecting the rights of the citizens. 8. An identical provision in the Students' Union Constitution which is challenged in this writ petition was prevailing in the case of Shrikant Shrivastava (Supra) and the Hon'ble Division Bench repelled the challenge laid to the said condition imposing the age limit for contesting the elections. Needless to say that a student gets admitted into an academic institution for studies which is a fundamental right. However, there is no fundamental right of any student to contest an election. Any student admitted in the educational institution can contest an election only if he or she is qualified for the same under the prevailing Constitution. The petitioner is beyond the age prescribed in the Constitution of MLSU 2022-23 for contesting the elections and thus, he cannot be allowed to do so. 9. Any student admitted in the educational institution can contest an election only if he or she is qualified for the same under the prevailing Constitution. The petitioner is beyond the age prescribed in the Constitution of MLSU 2022-23 for contesting the elections and thus, he cannot be allowed to do so. 9. It is our firm opinion that the age restriction imposed by condition No. 7(a)(ii) of the Constitution of MLSU 2022-23 reproduced supra, is not illegal, arbitrary or onerous in any manner so as to strike the same down while exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.