Cyriac Joseph, C.J.
1. The petitioner is a final year student of B.A. Degree Course in the Almora Campus (Soban Singh Jeena Campus) of Kumaon University. He has filed this writ petition praying for quashing Annexure-3 order dated 19-9-2005 by which the petitioner was informed by the first respondent-Registrar, Kumaon University that according to Admission Rule 1.12 and the provisions of the Constitution of the Students' Union, it was not possible to permit the petitioner to be a candidate in the election to the Students' Union for the year 2005-2006. The petitioner also prays for a direction to the respondents not to cancel the nomination of the petitioner for the post of Vice-President ot the Students' Union, Soban Singh Jeena Campus, Almora for the year 2005-2006.
2. It is not disputed that according to Clause 1.12 of the Admission Rules, a student who had taken regular admission but could not appear in the examination due to illness or such other valid reasons, can be given readmission in the same class, subject or faculty, if he is otherwise eligible under the relevant admission rules. However, such readmission can be given only once. It is also not disputed that according to Article 4(B) of the Constitution of the Students' Union, a candidate for the post of Vice-President should have been a regular student of the same educational institution during the previous year.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner had taken admission as a regular student of the Almora Campus of Kumaon University in the third (final) year of B.A. Degree Course on 28-9-2004 for the academic year 2004-2005. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had contested as a candidate for the post of Joint Secretary of the Students' Union in the election held on 5-10-2004. The petitioner did not win the election and he also did not write the final year examination. According to the petitioner, he could not attend classes during the academic year 2004-2005 and consequently, he did not have the required minimum attendance for appearing in the examination. But according to Mr. B. D. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for the Univer-sity, the petitioner's attendance during the academic year 2004-2005 was '0' (Zero). In other words, though the petitioner took admission on 28-9-2004 and contested in the election held on 5-10-2004, he did not attend the classes even on a single day.
4. The petitioner has not challenged the provisions contained in Article 4 (B) of the Constitution of the Students' Union and hence, he is bound by those provisions. Therefore the petitioner can be a candidate for election to the post of Vice President of the Students' Union during this academic year (i.e. 2005-2006) only if he was a regular student in the same educational institution during the previous academic year (i.e. 2004-2005). Thus, the question is whether the petitioner was a regular student of the Soban Singh Jeena Campus of the Kumaon University during the academic year 2004-2005.
5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner had been granted regular admission during the year 2004-2005, he was a regular student during 2004-2005 and on that basis, he is entitled to be a candidate in the election to the post of Vice President during the year 2005-2006. But according to the learned Counsel for the University, though the petitioner had taken admission on 28-9-2004, he had not attended classes even on a single day or appeared in any examination during the academic year 2004-2005 and therefore, he cannot be treated as a regular student of the academic year 2004-2005. In our view, a student who had only taken the admission but had not attended classes even on a single day, cannot be treated as a regular student. Only a person who took admission and underwent the regular course by attending the classes can be treated as a regular student for the purpose of Article 4 (B) of the Constitution of the Students' Union. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be a candidate in the election to the post of Vice President during the year 2005-2006.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since there is no definition of a 'regular student' in the Constitution of the Students' Union and since the University has not clarified what is meant by a 'regular student', the petitioner should be treated as a regular student and he should be allowed to contest in the election. It is true that the learned Counsel for the University could not point out any provision in the Constitution of the Students' Union or in the Statutes Regulations of the University defining or explaining the expression 'regular student'. In such circumstances, a reasonable, just and commonsense interpretation has to be given to the said expression. It will be against commonsense to interpret the expression 'regular student' to mean a student who only took the admission but did not attend classes even on a single day. Only a person who, after taking admission, underwent the regular course securing necessary attendance to make him eligible for appearing in the annual examination can be treated as a regular student for the purpose of Article 4(B) of the Constitution of the Students' Union. The above view taken by us is just and reasonable also. There is no justification for encouraging students to take admission in the College/University merely for the sake of contesting in elections. It is neither in the interest of the student nor in the interest of the Institution/Society. Students' Union activities are intended to develop the leadership qualities of students and to provide them training in the democratic process, along with academic pursuit. It is ob-
vious from the facts of this case that the petitioner is not interested in learning or academic pursuit. He is interested only in contesting in the election. The view taken by us will not result in any injustice to the petitioner. On the other hand, it might motivate him to concentrate on his studies and to complete the degree course successfully, if he has any such intention.
7. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed.