Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 539 (UTT)

Aakib Ahmed v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-09-19

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- (i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure-9) issued by Chief Election Officer Student Union Election 2023-24 DAV PG College, Dehradun, i.e. respondent no.4. (ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to grant 02 years age relaxation to petitioner in upper age limit for contesting the election of student union of DAV PG College Dehradun in the light of judgment and order dated 8.9.2022 in WP 2167 of 2022, Ankit Bisht Vs. State and Others. (iii) To pass any other/further suitable order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a student in DAV (PG) College, Dehradun (“the college”). For the last eight years, he has been preparing to contest the election of student union of the college. Due to COVID-19 pandemic, in the year 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, the election could not be held. The age limit for contesting election of student union is 22 years for undergraduate students, 25 years for post graduate students and 28 years for PhD students. The petitioner has crossed the age of 25 years. There is no PhD programme in the college, therefore, he is not able to contest the election. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that a similar controversy had arisen in the year 2022, when Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2167 of 2022, Ankit Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, (“the first petition”) was filed in this Court seeking two years’ age relaxation for contesting the election of the student union of the college, which was allowed by the Court on 08.09.2022, by which two years’ relaxation was given. The petitioner seeks relaxation of age in this case also on the ground that it is the second year after the order of the Court passed in the first petition, i.e. on 08.09.2022. 5. The petitioner seeks relaxation of age in this case also on the ground that it is the second year after the order of the Court passed in the first petition, i.e. on 08.09.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the first petition, the Court had considered the situation of COVID-19 pandemic, due to which the election could not be held for the student ]union in the college and directed the college authorities to grant age relaxation of two years for the purpose of participating in the election of the student union of the college. Therefore, it is argued that the petitioner is also entitled to get age relaxation in compliance with the order dated 08.09.2022 passed in the first petition. 6. In the first petition, the following prayers were sought by the petitioner of that case:- “a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to grant 02 years age relaxation to the petitioner in upper age limit for contesting the election of student union of D.A.V. (PG) College, Dehradun. b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to decide the representation of petitioner.” 7. After hearing the parties, the Court passed the following order:- 2. There is no dispute at the Bar that because of the Covid19 pandemic, no election could be held in the college for the last two academic sessions. Therefore, the petitioner, who is a student of D.A.V. (PG) College, Dehradun was denied of any chance of participating in the election as a candidate. Participation in the elections of college union is an integral part of the education, in view of the fact that an opportunity is given to the students for developing their leadership qualities and because such a valuable right has been denied to the petitioner, hence, the writ petition is allowed. 3. The respondent no. 3 is directed to grant age relaxation to the petitioner for two years for the purpose of participating in the election. This may be taken as precedence and any other candidates, who have also been denied of any chance of participating in election, may also be granted age relaxation for two years. 8. 3. The respondent no. 3 is directed to grant age relaxation to the petitioner for two years for the purpose of participating in the election. This may be taken as precedence and any other candidates, who have also been denied of any chance of participating in election, may also be granted age relaxation for two years. 8. A bare perusal of the above order reveals that the Court had then considered the situation that has arisen due to COVID-19 pandemic, and due to which election could not be held for the student union of the college. Further, in view of the fact, that an opportunity is to be given to the students for developing their leadership, the Court had directed to grant age relaxation for two years for the purpose of participating in the election of the student union of college. 9. In Para 3 of the judgment dated 08.09.2022, passed in the first petition, the word, “two years” relates to the relief-(a), as claimed in the first petition, which means two years’ age relaxation, not relaxation of age for 2 years, including the year 2022-2023, and 2023-24. It was one time relaxation that has been granted by the Court. 10. The interpretation, which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner of the Court’s order dated 08.09.2022, passed in the first petition, is that the word, “for two years” as occurring in Para 3 of the judgment, relates to academic years, may not be accepted for another reason. The reason is that if it is construed for academic years, then this order dated 08.09.2022, passed in the first petition, may not be read to the “year(s)” that may be relaxed for a candidate. In fact, in the first petition, on 08.09.2022, the Court had granted relief-(a) to the petitioner of that case and held that candidates may get two years’ age relaxation. 11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 12. The petition is dismissed in limine.