Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2282 (RAJ)

Abhishek Raj Bishnoi v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-08-22

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "(i) The Article 11(iii) of the Constitution of MBM University Jodhpur Students Union Objectives issued vide notification dated 02.08.2022 (Annex. 8) may kindly be declared illegal and void to the extent of fixing maximum age of 25 years instead of 28 years for Post Graduate Student contest the Student Union Election 2022-23. (ii) The respondent MBM University, Jodhpur may kindly be directed to fix the maximum, age limit of 28 years for Post Graduate Student to contest the election of Student Union 2022-23. (iii) The respondent MBM University, Jodhpur may kindly be further directed not to reject the nomination form of the petitioner for the post President of the Student Union Election 2022-23 on the ground that he has having the age of more than 25 years. (iv) The respondent MBM University, Jodhpur may kindly be directed to accept the nomination form of the petitioner for the post of President of Student Union Election 2022-23 which will filed on 22.08.2022 while considering the maximum age limit upto 28 years instead of 25 years." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Post Graduate Student and pursuing his studies in the Master of Engineering from MBM University, Jodhpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the graduation in the engineering is a five years course, therefore, fixing the maximum age limit for contesting the election for the students who are pursuing the Post Graduate course in the engineering wing of 25 years is erroneous. He submits that similarly situated persons who are pursuing the LLM course have been extended the benefit of the maximum age limit of 28 years. He, therefore, prays that the MBM University has committed an error while allowing only the students of the maximum age of 25 years who are pursuing Post Graduate studies to contest the elections. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the maximum age limit for the Post Graduate students should be 28 years and fixing the maximum age of 25 years is nothing but debarring the students from their right to contest the elections. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the maximum age limit for the Post Graduate students should be 28 years and fixing the maximum age of 25 years is nothing but debarring the students from their right to contest the elections. He, therefore, prays that the Writ petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be allowed to contest the elections as he is pursuing the Post Graduate studies in the MBM University. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that as per the Notification dated 02.08.2022 issued by the MBM University and as per the eligibility criteria enumerated in Article 11(iii) of the Constitution of MBM University, the maximum age limit to contest the elections for a person who is undergoing the Post Graduate courses is 25 years and since that condition is in existence even today, therefore, there is no reason to allow the petitioner to contest the elections for the year 2022-23. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon judgment of this court passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11897/2022 (Mohammad Sajid Quazi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11730/2022 (Jagdish Chandra Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 18.08.2022. He prays that the present writ petition is bereft of merit and, therefore, the same may kindly be dismissed with heavy cost. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the requisite documents as well as the Notification issued by the MBM University on 02.08.2022. 7. For the Brevity, the Article 11(ii to iv) of the Constitution dated 02.08.2022 is reproduced as under:- "(ii) Under Graduate Students between the ages of 18 and 25 may contest elections. For the Students of four years and five years of professional courses; the maximum age will be 25 years. (iii) For Post Graduate Students; the maximum age limit to contest the election would be 25 years. (iv) For Research Scholars P.G. Diploma; the maximum age limit to contest the election would be 28 years." 8. For the Students of four years and five years of professional courses; the maximum age will be 25 years. (iii) For Post Graduate Students; the maximum age limit to contest the election would be 25 years. (iv) For Research Scholars P.G. Diploma; the maximum age limit to contest the election would be 28 years." 8. A perusal of the eligibility criteria clearly shows that for the students of the Post Graduate courses, the maximum age limit to contest the election would be 25 years and, therefore the petitioner who is undergoing a Post Graduate Course in the MBM Engineering College is clearly ineligible in the wake of Article 11(iii) of the notification dated 02.08.2022. Since, the other students who are admitted in a University/College does not have a Fundamental Right to contest the Student Body Election though he may have a right to pursue the studies in the University, therefore a student cannot ask for a mandate from this court for contesting the elections as a Fundamental Right. Therefore, in the humble opinion of this court, the conditions of Article 11(iii) of the Constitution of MBM University cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Jagdish Chandra Gurjar (supra) has also taken the same view and has held as under:- "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. 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. 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. 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. Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit." 9. Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit." 9. Since it is a settled proposition of law that getting the education in the academic institution is a Fundamental Right but a person who is undergoing studies in the Institution or University is not having a Fundamental Right to contest the elections. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.