Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 616 (UTT)

Vishal v. Kumaon University Nainital

2023-11-01

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : By means of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- “(i) To issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to permit the petitioner for contesting election of Student Union for Academic Session 2023-24. (ii) Or/And pass any other order which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a student of Government College, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. He intends to contest the elections. The age limit for under Graduate student is up to 22 years. But, due to COVID-19 Pandemic, the election could not be held for two years, therefore, relaxation of two year may be granted to him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the age relaxation of two years needs to be granted to the petitioner in view of the judgment of this Court in WPMS No. 2167 of 2022, Ankit Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. 5. In the case of Ankit Bisht (supra), the following reliefs were sought:- “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.” 6. After discussing the matter, in para 3 of the judgment dated 08.09.2022, the Court had observed as follows:- “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.” 7. In fact, a similar controversy was raised before this Court in WPMS No. 2626 of 2023, Aakib Ahmed Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. In the case of Aakib Ahmed, this Court has interpreted the judgment given in the case of Ankit Bisht. In paras 7, 8, 9 and 10, this Court observed as hereunder:- “7. After hearing the parties, the Court passed the following order:- 2. State of Uttarakhand and others. In the case of Aakib Ahmed, this Court has interpreted the judgment given in the case of Ankit Bisht. In paras 7, 8, 9 and 10, this Court observed as hereunder:- “7. After hearing the parties, the Court passed the following order:- 2. There is no dispute at the Bar that because of the Covid-19 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. 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. 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.” 8. The writ petition filed by Aakib Ahmed was accordingly dismissed by this Court against which Special Appeal No. 330 of 2023, Aakib Ahmed Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others has also been dismissed. The controversy has been decided by this Court in the case of Aakib Ahmed. Two years’ relaxation that was granted by the Court in the case of Ankit Bisht (supra) does not relate to academic years. It was two years’ relaxation at that relevant time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the instant petition. Accordingly, it deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 9. The petition is dismissed in limine.