Ramsheed and others v. Mahatma Gandhi University and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/10TH KARTHIKA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 19786 of 2013 (W)** **-----------------------------------------** **PETITIONERS:** **---------------------** **1. RAMSHEED, AGED 21, S/O.PULPARACHALIL SHAKEER, PIZHAKAPILLY P.O, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 674.** **2. ASIF ALI T.K, AGED 21, S/O.THANDAKALA HOUSE KUNJUMUHAMMED T.A, PATTIMATTOM P.O., CHENGARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 562.** **3. HAFIZ M.A, AGED 29, S/O.MULAKAMIL ABU, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 203.** **4. SHABAS T.S,** - **S/O.SHAJI, THAYOTH PARAMBU HOUSE, EDAPALLY, ERNAKULAM-682 028.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SREEKUMAR G.(CHELUR), SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN, SRI.P.E.SAJAL, SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN, SRI.SAYED MURTHALA THANGAL.** **RESPONDENTS:** **-----------------------** **1. THE MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560.** **Prv.** ## **W.P.(C).NO.19786/2013:** **2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560. BY STANDING COUNSEL DR.P.LEELAKRISHNAN.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2013, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NOS.20379/2013 & 23987/2013 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **W.P.(C).NO.19786/2013-W:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE R2. DT.19-7-2013.** - **EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE BYELAWS OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR COLLEGE UNIONS, OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT.NIL.** - **EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R1. DT.3-7-2013.** - **EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO. 22593 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT.17-10-2012.** - **EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT.20-9-2012.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).Nos. 19786, 20379 & 23987 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1[st] day of November, 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **JUDGMENT** The only controversy raised in all these writ petitions is on the implementation of the Lyndogh Committee report, as has been, at present approved, by an interim order of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in **University of Kerala** ## **v. Council, Principals' Colleges, Kerala and others (2006** **(8) SCC 304).** The petitioners are all elected University Union Councilors from their respective colleges. Without going into the intricacies of the report, the dispute now placed before this Court is for resolution as to whether the elections to the University Union has to be conducted in the Parliamentary mode or in the Presidential mode. 2. To look at the systems as such, there have been, inter alia two systems prescribed by the Lyndogh Committee. One system which can be called 'direct selection system' is by which the University Union Councillors, the College Union representatives and Office bearers of the College Union are ## **W.P.(C).Nos. 19786, 20379 & 23987 of 2013** 2 selected by the entire mass of students of the Campus in each college. The other system is by which each class selects their representative and the electoral college of the representatives select the University Union Councilors, the college Union members and the Office bearers of the College Unions. The University, by impugned directions in these writ petitions insisted that there can be only direct system of election ie., the entire Campus has to elect the University Union representatives. Needless to say, the University has nothing to do with the election of the College Union as such or its Office members. 3. In fact, the learned counsel for the University would seek to substantiate the impugned orders and seriously question the locus standi of the petitioners in moving this Court for the reliefs prayed for in these writ petitions. The contention is that even looking at the decisions cited by the petitioners, it is clear that the Colleges had approached this Court in the earlier instances and no student has a right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court challenging the orders of ## **W.P.(C).Nos. 19786, 20379 & 23987 of 2013** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the University. In the expanding horizons of the definition of an aggrieved party as also the compelling circumstances of each of the petitioners being elected from their respective colleges as University Union Councilors, this Court is of the opinion that the locus standi issue raised by the University is not in order. The petitioners are declared to have locus standi, in the said circumstances. 4. With respect to the procedure for election, it is evident from the disputes raised herein that the Colleges under the same University followed different systems. The University in their counter affidavit has proclaimed its intention to bring in uniformity and to that end they insisted that there should be direct selection involving entire campus and hence the impugned directions. It has to be noticed that whether it be by direct selection or by an electoral college of class representatives, the number of University Union Councilors to be send from a college is fixed by the University and there can be no change in that. The mode of election to be followed by each college or the uniformity of the election procedure does ## **W.P.(C).Nos. 19786, 20379 & 23987 of 2013** 4 not at all matter to the University, insofar as the University is concerned only with the Constitution of the University Union to which each college elects definite number of persons. In such circumstances, it is the prerogative of the College to decide as to how the election procedure has to be followed especially in the circumstances of the Lyndogh Committee report having put forth both the said systems as being practicable. This Court is also supported in taking such a view by the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in a batch of writ petitions, W.P.(C).23577 of 2008 and connected cases dated 17.10.2012 produced as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C).19786 of 2013, as also a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in **Council of** **Principals' of Colleges v. State of Kerala (2004 (2) KLT, 995)** . The Division Bench in similar circumstances held so :- “In such circumstances the direction given in the letters to conduct election following the presidential system of election cannot be sustained and the affiliated colleges are free to follow a system which is better for the administration and discipline in the colleges.” ## **W.P.(C).Nos. 19786, 20379 & 23987 of 2013** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 5. Following the binding precedent it is declared that it is the prerogative of the individual colleges to decide as to how an election is to be conducted. Merely on the ground that the election conducted is not as per the procedure dictated by the University; the elected members cannot be prevented from participating in the University Unions. Writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Sd/- **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge** Mrcs //true copy//