M. Thanga Dorai Vs. the Chancellor, University of Kerala, Trivandrum and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution - election - sections 17, 17(2), 17(3), 17(7) and 17(13) of kerala university act, 1974, articles 226 and 348(3) of constitution of india and kerala panchayats act - petitions relate to constitution of senate of kerala university which is electoral college for election to syndicate of university - petitioners question election of members of syndicate on account of wrong or illegal constitution of senate - no election to any authority shall be invalid on account of vacancy among persons entitled to vote - held, elections valid. - - talcing into consideration this aspect as well, dr. that committee recommended to constitute an inspection commission consisting of dr. section 13 of the keralapanchayats act states that if the government are satisfied that a panchayat cannot be constituted by reason of difficulty in holding an election of the members of the panchayat, by notification government can appoint an administrative committee and the president thereof or appoint a special officer.orderk. sreedharan, j.1. the issues raised in these original petitions relate to the constitution of senate of the kerala university which is the electoral college for election to the syndicate of the university. therefore i consider it advantageous to have these original petitions disposed of by a common judgment.2. the senate of the kerala university shall consist of ex-officio members, members to be nominated by the chancellor, elected members, life members and other members as provided in section17 of the kerala university act. among the ex-officio members, seven heads of university departments who are not otherwise members of the senate are to be nominated by the chancellor in the order of seniority by rotation. similarly from among the deans of the various faculties of the university, four who are not otherwise members of the senate are to be nominated by the chancellor in the order of seniority by rotation. nomination of the heads of departments and four deans of the faculties are under challenge in o. p. 8334/95. petitioner in o.p. 8334/95 is a reader in the department of communication and journalism. he claim to be the head of that department. it is his case that not only his department but also himself is senior enough to be nominated to the senate as head of the department of communication and journalism. it is his further case that while nominating the seven heads of departments, the chancellor has violated the mandate contained in the act, namely, seniority and rotation. petitionerurges that seniority of the heads of departments should be on the basis of the seniority of the departments i.e. the departments which were established at the earliest point of time must be considered to be senior to those which came into existence on a later date. so also the rotation made mention of in the act should be among the departments which can claim seniority over the other. alternatively it was urged that in case the seniority of the departments as stated above is not followed, the seniority of the individual depending on the length of service put in should be the criteria for deciding the seniority for nomination to the senate. learned advocate general appearing in the case submitted that seniority of the individual has not been the criteria so far adopted for nominating the seven heads of departments as per the act. in view of this submission, it can safely be taken that the basis for nominating the heads of departments should be the seniority of the departments with reference to the date of its establishment.3. by notification dated 19-5-1995, chancellor nominated seven heads of departments to the senate of the university as per section17 ex-officio members-(i3) of the kerala university act, 1974. among the seven, the first three are heads of departments which came into existence in 1991. persons nominated as items 4 to 6 in that notification are heads of departments which came into existence in february, 1995. the 7th member nominated is the head of the department which was one of the earliest departments established. according to petitioner, heads of departments mentioned as items 4 to 6 in the said notification are not senior enough to be nominated to the senate. those heads of departments should have waited for some years for getting nominated to the senate as was the case of three heads of departments ranked 1 to 3. in this view of the matter, it is the petitioner's case that the nomination of heads of departments ranked 4 to 6 in the said notification is illegal.4. according to learned counsel representing the petitioner in o.p. 8334/95, kerala university established nearly 44 departmentsunder it. out of them, three departments came into existence only in february, 1995. the other departments came into existence in 1991 and earlier. departments which were in existence were represented in the senate by giving nomination to their heads. those departments got representation in the senate by completing one cycle. while starting the second cycle nomination was not effected from the oldest departments. since the second cycle has been started, it is contended that the new departments cannot be given representation on the ground that they have not been given representation while the first cycle was in operation and so they should wait for their turn in the second cycle. if such a procedure is adopted, the departments ranked 4 to 6 in the notification referred to earlier could not have been nominated. on these basis, the nomination of the heads of departments, as per the notification referred to earlier, is challenged by the petitioner.5. before dealing with the above contentions of the petitioner in detail, it is necessary to consider the petitioner's right to challenge the nominations. as per section17 ex-officio members (13). seven heads of university departments are to be nominated. it means the nomination must be from among the heads of departments. petitioner is not a head of the department. he is only a reader in the department which has a professor as its head. since the professor's post is lying vacant, petitioner being the reader is ordered to look after the affairs of the department as its head. can he be considered as head of the department? statutes 18 in chapter 3 of the kerala university first statutes 1977 provides for the head of a department. it states that the professor in charge of a department shall be the head of the department. if there are more professors in one department, the syndicate shall nominate the senior-most professor as the professor in charge of the department. in the department which has no professor, the senior or senior-most reader shall be the head of the department. it also states that other members of the teaching staff should work under his direction and assist him in performance of his duties. in a department which has a professor and if thepost of professor is lying vacant, the reader can discharge the duties of the head of the department. such a reader, who is to discharge the duties of the professor is neither a professor nor head of that department. petitioner has not been nominated as the head of the department by the syndicate either. in view of the above provision in statute 18 of chapter 3 of the kerala university first statutes, petitioner herein cannot be considered as the head of the department. nomination to the senate as per section 17( 13) can only be of a head of the department. petitioner not being the head of the department is not in the field of choice for nomination to the senate. therefore petitioner can never be considered as a person aggrieved by the nomination because his rights have not been adversely affected in any manner whatsoever.6. when faced with the provision contained in statute 18 of chapter 3 of the first statutes, learned counsel representing the petitioner urged that the o.p. may be considered as one filed by a person in public interest and since he has established violation of the statutory provisions contained in the kerala university act, this court in exercise of the powers under article 226 of the constitution should direct the chancellor to rectify the mistake committed by him in nominating the heads of departments mentioned as 4 to 6 in the notification referred to earlier.7. the contention of the petitioner is that the heads of departments of opto-electro-nics, bio-technology and environmental studies are on probation and therefore are not entitled to be nominated to the senate. persons who are holding the post of heads of departments of the above mentioned three departments are juniors in the cadre of professors, being on probation. the seniority of the personnel holding that post is not the criteria for nomination of ex-officio members as per section 17( 13) of the act. the seniority, as stated earlier, of the department is the aspect to be looked into. it is not the seniority of the individual who holds the post of head of the department. nomination of the first six heads of university departments to the senate as per the notification dated 19-5-95was made taking into consideration that those departments were not represented in the senate at any point of time. among the various departments, the first six departments mentioned in the notification were not at all represented in the senate. all the other departments which are seniors with reference to the date of their establishment were represented in the senate some time or other. therefore, depending on the seniority of the departments, those departments which had never got the opportunity to be represented in the senate, were given that chance. in making that nomination, the seniority of those departments were taken into consideration because while considering seniority, the juniority among the departments is also to be looked into. except the first six departments mentioned in notification dated 19-5-95, all the other seniors departments had their representative in the senate some time or other. viewed in this light, i do not find anything illegal or improper in the nomination of departments ranked 1 to 6 in the notification dated 19-5-95. further when two views are possible on the interpretation of section 17 ex-officio (13) and the chancellor has chosen one of those views, this court in exercise of the powers under article 226 of the constitution is not to substitute its views for that of the chancellor. accordingly, i hold that the nomination of the heads of departments as per notification dated 19-5-95 is not open to challenge.8. by another notification dated 19-5-95, four deans of faculties were nominated to the senate as per section 17 ex-officio members (14) of the kerala university act. their nomination is also questioned by the petitioner in o.p. 8334/95 on the ground of violation of the seniority and rotation of deans of faculties. as in the case of heads of departments, petitioner is not personally aggrieved by the nomination. but he wants this court to examine the nomination of the four to see whether the provisions in the act have been violated by the chancellor or not. appointment of deans in a faculty is for a period of two years. there are at present 16 deans of faculties. four among them are to be nominated by the chancellor in the orderof seniority by rotation. among the 16 deans of arts, social science, medicine and law are otherwise members of the senate. of the remaining 12 faculties, according to respondents, medicine, applied science, oriental studies, social science, physical education, engineering & technology, dentistry and education were given representation in the last senate. the remaining six faculties namely, homoeopathy, management studies, science, commerce, fine arts and ayurveda were not represented. even though the dean of homoeopathy dr. ravi m. nair was nominated to the senate for a period of two years from 24-11-88, he could continue in the senate till 29-12-89 only since he ceased to hold the post of dean. as such dr. nair was in the senate only for a period of one year and one month. talcing into consideration this aspect as well, dr. ravi m. nair was nominated representing the faculty of homoeopathy. the other three nominees are the deans of faculty of science, faculty of commerce and faculty of management studies. they were so nominated depending on the seniority of the department by rotation.9. it is the further case of the respondents that the seniority of the deans cannot be decided on the basis of service put in by them. the seniority in this case can be decided only on the basis of their age. that criteria was looked into in nominating the deans as per the notification dated 29-5-95. as stated earlier, when it is seen that two views are possible regarding the seniority by rotation of the deans to be nominated by the senate and one view has been adopted by the chancellor, this court is not to substitute its view to that of the chancellor. the result therefore is, the attack levelled against the nomination of the heads of departments and the deans in o.p. 8334/95 has no legal ground. i over rule the contentions raised by the petitioner.10. o.ps. 11302/95 and 12977/95 relate to the nomination made by the chancellor of the 4th respondent therein namely sri r. s. sasikumar as one representing a recognised research institution under section 17 other members (2) of the kerala university act.petitioners contend that the kerala state council for child welfare is not a research institution as contemplated by the kerala university act and the statutes framed thereunder and so the 4th respondent can never be nominated as one representing a research institution.11. kerala state council for child welfare is an organisation registered on 14-9-1960 under the travancore cochin literary scientific and charitable societies registration act, act 12 of 1955. the objects of that society as per the memorandum of association, it is alleged, show that it has no connection with any research activity. the specific case put-forth by the petitioners in these original petitions is that the kerala state council for child welfare was never recognised institution by following the procedure laid down in chapter 33 of the kerala university first statutes. without following the procedure in chapter 33 of the first statutes, it is argued, no institution can be recognised by the university as a recognised institution.12. recognised research institution is not-defined under the university act. a recognised institution has been defined in section 2(19) of the act to mean an institution for research or special studies other than an affiliated college recognised as such by the university. chapter 33 of the first statutes provides that the syndicate shall recognise any institution engaged in research or specialised studies as a recognised institution. an institution which seeks recognition should submit an application to the registrar giving the details prescribed in statutes of chapter 33. when such an application is filed, the syndicate may after considering the views of the academic council, call for such further information as it may deem necessary relevant to the application by visiting the institution. on receipt of the further information and the enquiry report, if the syndicate thinks fit, it may grant the application for such period as may be specified in the order. thus for granting recognition to an institution, the application for the purpose should be considered by the academic council. on the basis of the reportof the academic council, the syndicate may appoint a committee for making an enquiry into the matters relating to the institution. only thereafter can the syndicate grant recognition to the institution. in the instant case, an application for recognition as research institute was filed by the third respondent, the kerala state council for child welfare before the registrar on 2-2-95. on the same day it was placed before the standing committee on research and scholarships. that committee recommended to constitute an inspection commission consisting of dr. k. saratchandran, fr. k. a. abraham, members of the syndicate and dr. g. narayana pillai, an expert. third respondent was required to deposit a sum of rs. 1500/-towards the inspection fee for the commission. the amount, according to petitioners, was deposited on 25-2-95 and on the same day the commission submitted a report recommending to recognise the third respondent as a research institute. petitioners have categorically averred that sri g. narayana pillai the expert in the commission was not a party to the said report. report of the committee was placed before the vice-chancellor and in exercise of his powers under section10(13) of the kerala university act which entitles him to take immediate action in exercise of the powers vested in the syndicate or the academic council, approved the decision of the standing committee. the senate meeting held on 28-3-95 approved the same. it is the further case of the petitioners that the decision of the standing committee to send the commission for inspection of the third respondent institution was placed before the syndicate subsequent to 28-3-95. on these grounds, it is contended that the kerala state council for child welfare is not a research institution and the syndicate of the kerala university granted recognition without following the procedure laid down in statute 33 of the kerala university first statutes.13. a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the university in an attempt to justify the recognition given to the third respondent. in that counter affidavit the averments made by the petitioners that sri v. s. hareendranath is the vice-president ofthe third respondent and he was a member of the standing committee on research and scholarship which appointed three members to inspect the facilities available with the third respondent is not denied. further the case of the petitioner that the expert, sri g. narayana pillai did not sign the report of the committee is also not controverted. according to counter affidavit, the vice-chancellor who was having the powers of the academic council exercised the powers of the academic council and recognition was given properly. the unwholly haste in which the third respondent has been recognised as a research institution coming within the purview of section 17 other members (2) speaks volumes. i am not in a position to approve of the unwholly haste with which the matter was processed by the university. so also i am at a loss to understand how kerala state council for child welfare happened to be described as kerata state child welfare research centre in the minutes of the meeting held on 2-2-95 of the standing committee on research and scholarships. 4th respondent who is an assistant registrar of the kerala university is the general secretary of the federation of the university employees organisation. he contested thrice for membership in the senate. he did not succeed. therefore he got the post of, honourary treasurer in the third respondent organisation and after getting the third respondent recognised as a research institution managed to get himself nominated to the senate. this backdoor method adopted by the third respondent with the active connivance of the authorities of the university shows that the statutory provisions have been violated in this case. as procedure contemplated by the university first statutes and act have not been complied with in a bona fide manner, i have no hesitation in quashing the nomination of the 4th respondent to the senate.14. petitioner in o.p. 10799/95 secured the highest mark in the b.sc. (physics) examination held by the kerala university during march-april, 1994, she having secured 969 marks out of 1000. as per section17 other members (3) chancellor is to nominate one student having outstanding ability in science.petitioner having secured the highest marks in physics, a science subject, should have been considered by the chancellor before effecting a nomination of the student under section17 other members (3) of the kerala university act. according to petitioner, since the chancellor has not considered her case while nominating the 4th respondent, the nomination should be interfered with by this court. this claim of the petitioner is countered by respondents on the ground that her case was also considered by the chancellor before making the nomination of the 4th respondent as could be seen in ext. r1(a). ext. r1(a) is the provisional list of rank holders in various subjects of the b.sc. final examination held in april-may, 1994. it is true that ext.r 1(a) list prepared on 4-4-95 gave petitioner's name as against the subject physics showing the total marks secured by her as 969 out of 1000. but the fact remains that the list as on 4-4-94 could not have been the one considered by the chancellor because only a student who secured the highest mark in the subject who continues the studies can be in the field of choice. after the preparation of ext. r1 (a) on 4-4-95, by ext.p2 communication dated 3-5-95 petitioner was asked to report whether she is undergoing any course of study. in reply to that, she sent ext.p3 communication dated 5-5-95. thereafter alone could her name be included in the names of eligible students. petitioner has specifically averred that the university did not prepare a list of rank holders after receipt of ext.p3 communication for placing it before the chancellor. the chancellor nominated 4th respondent in the discipline science on account of her having secured 894 marks out of 1000 in statistics. learned counsel representing the university advanced an argument that when the chancellor nominates a student as having outstanding ability in science, that nomination is not to be interfered with by this court. this argument if accepted, will result in giving absolute unbridled arbitrary power to the chancellor in making nomination. such a power cannot be claimed by the chancellor who is to act in conformity with the kerala university act and the statutes made there-lunder. as is commonly accepted by all courtsarbitrariness is antithesis of fair play. the chancellor, the highest authority under the act, can at no circumstance be attributed with arbitrary power. if petitioner who secured the highest mark in physics was not included in the list that was placed before the vice-chancellor, the action of the chancellor cannot be considered to be proper. respondents have no case in their counter affidavit that petitioner's name was also included in a list of qualified students prepared after receipt of ext.p3 communication. in such a situation, i quash the nomination of the 4th respondent representing the students having outstanding ability in science.15. petitioner in o.p. 10962/95 is the president of kottarakkara kashuandi thozhilali council, a trade union registered under the trade unions act. his contention is that under section17 elected members (8) two members are to be elected by the registered trade unions in the university area. there was none elected from the trade unions and so the constitution of the senate is improper.16. as per the statutes the electoral roll shall include only the registered trade unions in the university area which have a membership of over 2000 as on the first day of the may of the year succeeding calendar year to which returns under the kerala trade unions regulations relate. returns which was submitted till may 1994 were considered and names of three presidents were received from the registrar of trade unions. all the three filed nomination to the two vacancies. the two candidates were proposed by each in addition of being a candidate. so as between the three, two could not be selected as having secured the highest number of votes. in such a situation, the university was not in a position to have two members elected from the three trade unions. the said action of the university cannot be faulted. the result is o.p. 10962/95 has only to be dismissed and i do so.17. petitioner in o.p. 10999/95 is thepresident of budhanur panchayat. as a member of the panchayat he was elected to the senate under section 17 elected members (7) of the kerala university act. whilereconstituting the senate as per notification dated 7-7-95, the four vacancies of representatives of local authorities of the district has been kept vacant. the said action is under challenge on the ground that as an elected member of the budhanur panchayat, he should have been included as a member of the senate.18. last election to the panchayat under the kerala panchayat act, 1960 was held on 9-2-88. the term of the elected members under the kerala panchayat act is five years. that period expired on 8-2-93 as per the terms of section11 of the kerala panchayat act. section 11(1) of the act stated that the term of office of the members of every panchayat who are elected at ordinary elections shall be five years. it has a proviso stating that the government may by notification in the gazette extend or reduce the said term by such period as may be specified in the notification. by g.o.(p)16/93 ext.p3 government extended the term of office of all elected members of all panchayats except vellarada panchayat for a further period of six months. as' per this notification, the tenure of office of the elected members was thus extended to 9-8-93. since election to the panchayat could not be conducted within the said extended period, government by g.o.(p)152/93 extended the term of office of all elected members of panchayat in the state except vellarada panchayat for a further period of six months with effect from 10-8-93. consequently the term of office of the elected members was extended till 9-2-94. even within the extended period, election to panchayat could not take place. so government by g.o.(p)23/94/lad, ext.p7, appointed administrative committee with the outgoing members of the panchayat and the president as the members and the president of the administrative committee. the explanatory note to that notification makes it clear that in the light of the 73rd amendment of the constitution the term of the members of the panchayat cannot be extended. but invoking the powers under section 13 of the kerala panchayat act, 1960, government appointed administrative committees and president to the panchayat. section 13 of the keralapanchayats act states that if the government are satisfied that a panchayat cannot be constituted by reason of difficulty in holding an election of the members of the panchayat, by notification government can appoint an administrative committee and the president thereof or appoint a special officer. the said provision does not mandate that the elected members of the panchayat who were holding office pursuant to the earlier notification should be the members of the administrative committee. government in their wisdom are at liberty to appoint anyone to be a member of the administrative committee. the administrative committee so constituted is to be treated as entirely different from the elected members of the panchayat. the mere fact that the elected members continued to be the members of the administrative committee will not confer on them any right as elected members of the panchayat. in other words, the elected members of panchayat who were made members of the administrative committee as per ext.p7 notification are not in office as elected members of the panchayat.19. statute 14 in the kerala university (conduct of elections to various authorities or bodies) first statutes, 1974 states that the names of persons who are on the electoral body 60 days before the date of publication of the roll alone shall be included in the electoral roll and such persons alone shall be entitled to participate in the election. it has a proviso to the effect that any person who ceases to be a member of an electoral body before the date of issue of ballot paper from the university office shall not be entitled to participate in the election. petitioner was an elected member of the panchayat. as per the provision contained in section 11 of the kerala panchayats act, his term of office expired on 8-2-93. but by virtue of exts.p5 and p6 the term of his office was extended up to 8-2-94. this was subsequent to the 73rd amendment to the constitution. even conceding for argument sake that the extension of the term of office of the members given by ext.p6 notification is valid, it could be valid only till 8-2-94. thereafter there was no elected member to the panchayat in kerala. government appointed. administrative committees as providedunder section13 of the kerala panchayats act. membership in the administrative committee cannot be equated to be same as elected member. consequently from 8-2-94 petitioner was not a member of the local authority. his membership in the administrative committee will not cloth him with the rights of a member of the local authority. in this view of the matter, petitioner's name could not have been included in the electoral body 60 days prior to the publication of the roll. consequently i cannot find any illegality in the action taken by the authorities of the university.20. petitioners in all these original petitions question the election of the members of the syndicate on account of the wrong or illegal constitution of the senate. process of election to the syndicate was initiated long back. election has also taken place with the existing members of the senate. publication of the result-alone has been stayed by this court. in such a situation, is this court to up set the election to the syndicate? statute 10 of the kerala university (conduct of elections to various authorities or bodies) first statutes 1974 is in the following :--'election not invalid by reason of vacancies in electorates :-- (1) no election to an authority of the university shall be invalid for reasons of any vacancy among the persons entitled to vote at such election or an account of the non-receipt or loss during transmission of any notice, ballot paper, or any other paper connected with the election.'as per this statute, no election to any authority shall be invalid on account of the vacancy among the persons entitled to vote. so also if any person invalidly nominate or elected to the senate exercised his vote for the election to the syndicate, that election to the syndicate will not become invalid on account of the setting aside of his election to the senate. in the instant case the nomination of a member representing a recognised research institution and the nomination of one student as having outstanding ability in science have been set aside. but before this decision, as members of the seriate they exercised vote for electing the members of the syndicate. themere fact that two have been non-seated will not in any way invalidate the election to the syndicate. further it is trite law that this court in exercise of the powers under article 226 of the constitution is not ordinarily to interfere with the process of election when the process of election has reached the fag-end. viewed in the light of the statutory provision and the law governing the election. i do not find my way to upset the election to the syndicate.21. before parting with the case, i will have to highlight an awkward situation that has been created by the state in not publishing the english translation of the panchayat raj act and its amendment of 1995. panchayat raj act was passed by the legislature on 23-4-96 and the malayalam text was published on 23-4-94. this original petition came up before justice kamat on 19-8-95. on that day some of the provisions of the panchayat raj act was brought to the notice of the learned judge. since he was not knowing malayalam, he could not proceed with the case. english translation of panchayat raj act was published in the gazette dated 10-7-95. the said act underwent as amendment as per act 7 of 1955. the malayalam copy of that amendment act was published in the gazette dated 5-8-95. translation of that amending act has not so far been published.22. as per clause (3) of article 348 of the constitution, the state legislature can prescribe any language other than the english language for use in bills introduced in, or acts passed by the legislature or in ordinance promulgated by the governor. that provision further enjoins the state legislature to have a translation of the bill, act or ordinance or any order, rule, regulation or bye-law in english language in the official gazette. clause (3) further proceeds to state that the translation in english language shall be deemed to be the authoritative text of the bill, act or ordinance etc. so whenever a bill is introduced in the legislature or an act is passed by the legislature or an ordinance is promulgated by the governor or any order, rule, regulation or bye-law is issued in the exercise of the powers to make subordinatelegislation english translation of the same should be published simultaneously. the said translation is to be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof. such english translations are not forthcoming immediately after the passing of the act, promulgation of the ordinance of the issue of order, rule, regulation, bye-law etc. this is against the constitutional pro vision contained in article 348(3) of the constitution. the government and the legislature cannot ignore the said constitutional mandate. so, i take this opportunity to impress upon the legislature and the government to issue english translations of the bills, acts, ordinances, order, bye-law etc. simultaneously with their introduction, passing, promulgation or issue as the case may be.in the result, original petitions 8334/95, 10962/95 and 10999/95 are dismissed. o. ps. 10799/95, 11302/95 and 12977/95 are allowed as indicated earlier in this judgment. parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. copy of this judgment will be sent to the chief secretary and secretary, kerala legislative assembly for follow up action.

Judgment:
ORDER

K. Sreedharan, J.

1. The issues raised in these original petitions relate to the constitution of Senate of the Kerala University which is the electoral college for election to the Syndicate of the University. Therefore I consider it advantageous to have these original petitions disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The Senate of the Kerala University shall consist of Ex-Officio members, members to be nominated by the Chancellor, elected members, life members and other members as provided in Section17 of the Kerala University Act. Among the Ex-Officio members, seven Heads of University Departments who are not otherwise members of the Senate are to be nominated by the Chancellor in the order of seniority by rotation. Similarly from among the Deans of the various Faculties of the University, four who are not otherwise members of the Senate are to be nominated by the Chancellor in the order of seniority by rotation. Nomination of the Heads of Departments and four Deans of the Faculties are under challenge in O. P. 8334/95. Petitioner in O.P. 8334/95 is a Reader in the Department of Communication and Journalism. He claim to be the Head of that Department. It is his case that not only his department but also himself is senior enough to be nominated to the Senate as Head of the Department of Communication and Journalism. It is his further case that while nominating the seven Heads of Departments, the Chancellor has violated the mandate contained in the Act, namely, seniority and rotation. Petitionerurges that seniority of the Heads of Departments should be on the basis of the seniority of the departments i.e. the departments which were established at the earliest point of time must be considered to be senior to those which came into existence on a later date. So also the rotation made mention of in the Act should be among the departments which can claim seniority over the other. Alternatively it was urged that in case the seniority of the departments as stated above is not followed, the seniority of the individual depending on the length of service put in should be the criteria for deciding the seniority for nomination to the Senate. Learned Advocate General appearing in the case submitted that seniority of the individual has not been the criteria so far adopted for nominating the seven Heads of Departments as per the Act. In view of this submission, it can safely be taken that the basis for nominating the Heads of Departments should be the seniority of the departments with reference to the date of its establishment.

3. By Notification dated 19-5-1995, Chancellor nominated seven Heads of Departments to the Senate of the University as per Section17 Ex-Officio Members-(I3) of the Kerala University Act, 1974. Among the seven, the first three are Heads of Departments which came into existence in 1991. Persons nominated as Items 4 to 6 in that Notification are Heads of Departments which came into existence in February, 1995. The 7th member nominated is the Head of the Department which was one of the earliest departments established. According to petitioner, Heads of Departments mentioned as Items 4 to 6 in the said Notification are not senior enough to be nominated to the Senate. Those Heads of Departments should have waited for some years for getting nominated to the Senate as was the case of three Heads of Departments ranked 1 to 3. In this view of the matter, it is the petitioner's case that the nomination of Heads of Departments ranked 4 to 6 in the said Notification is illegal.

4. According to learned counsel representing the petitioner in O.P. 8334/95, Kerala University established nearly 44 departmentsunder it. Out of them, three departments came into existence only in February, 1995. The other departments came into existence in 1991 and earlier. Departments which were in existence were represented in the Senate by giving nomination to their Heads. Those departments got representation in the Senate by completing one cycle. While starting the second cycle nomination was not effected from the oldest departments. Since the second cycle has been started, it is contended that the new departments cannot be given representation on the ground that they have not been given representation while the first cycle was in operation and so they should wait for their turn in the second cycle. If such a procedure is adopted, the departments ranked 4 to 6 in the notification referred to earlier could not have been nominated. On these basis, the nomination of the Heads of Departments, as per the Notification referred to earlier, is challenged by the petitioner.

5. Before dealing with the above contentions of the petitioner in detail, it is necessary to consider the petitioner's right to challenge the nominations. As per Section17 Ex-Officio Members (13). seven Heads of University Departments are to be nominated. It means the nomination must be from among the Heads of Departments. Petitioner is not a Head of the Department. He is only a Reader in the Department which has a Professor as its Head. Since the Professor's post is lying vacant, petitioner being the Reader is ordered to look after the affairs of the Department as its Head. Can he be considered as Head of the Department? Statutes 18 in Chapter 3 of the Kerala University First Statutes 1977 provides for the Head of a Department. It states that the Professor in charge of a department shall be the Head of the Department. If there are more Professors in one department, the Syndicate shall nominate the senior-most Professor as the Professor in charge of the Department. In the Department which has no Professor, the senior or senior-most Reader shall be the Head of the Department. It also states that other members of the teaching staff should work under his direction and assist him in performance of his duties. In a Department which has a Professor and if thepost of Professor is lying vacant, the Reader can discharge the duties of the Head of the Department. Such a Reader, who is to discharge the duties of the Professor is neither a Professor nor Head of that Department. Petitioner has not been nominated as the Head of the Department by the Syndicate either. In view of the above provision in Statute 18 of Chapter 3 of the Kerala University First Statutes, petitioner herein cannot be considered as the Head of the Department. Nomination to the Senate as per Section 17( 13) can only be of a Head of the Department. Petitioner not being the Head of the Department is not in the field of choice for nomination to the Senate. Therefore petitioner can never be considered as a person aggrieved by the nomination because his rights have not been adversely affected in any manner whatsoever.

6. When faced with the provision contained in Statute 18 of Chapter 3 of the First Statutes, learned counsel representing the petitioner urged that the O.P. may be considered as one filed by a person in public interest and since he has established violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Kerala University Act, this court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should direct the Chancellor to rectify the mistake committed by him in nominating the Heads of Departments mentioned as 4 to 6 in the Notification referred to earlier.

7. The contention of the petitioner is that the Heads of Departments of Opto-Electro-nics, Bio-Technology and Environmental Studies are on probation and therefore are not entitled to be nominated to the Senate. Persons who are holding the post of Heads of Departments of the above mentioned three departments are juniors in the cadre of Professors, being on probation. The seniority of the personnel holding that post is not the criteria for nomination of Ex-Officio members as per Section 17( 13) of the Act. The seniority, as stated earlier, of the department is the aspect to be looked into. It is not the seniority of the individual who holds the post of Head of the Department. Nomination of the first six Heads of University Departments to the Senate as per the Notification dated 19-5-95was made taking into consideration that those Departments were not represented in the Senate at any point of time. Among the various Departments, the first six departments mentioned in the Notification were not at all represented in the Senate. All the other Departments which are seniors with reference to the date of their establishment were represented in the Senate some time or other. Therefore, depending on the seniority of the Departments, those Departments which had never got the opportunity to be represented in the Senate, were given that chance. In making that nomination, the seniority of those departments were taken into consideration because while considering seniority, the juniority among the departments is also to be looked into. Except the first six departments mentioned in Notification dated 19-5-95, all the other seniors departments had their representative in the Senate some time or other. Viewed in this light, I do not find anything illegal or improper in the nomination of departments ranked 1 to 6 in the Notification dated 19-5-95. Further when two views are possible on the interpretation of Section 17 Ex-Officio (13) and the Chancellor has chosen one of those views, this court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is not to substitute its views for that of the Chancellor. Accordingly, I hold that the nomination of the Heads of Departments as per Notification dated 19-5-95 is not open to challenge.

8. By another Notification dated 19-5-95, four Deans of Faculties were nominated to the Senate as per Section 17 Ex-Officio Members (14) of the Kerala University Act. Their nomination is also questioned by the petitioner in O.P. 8334/95 on the ground of violation of the seniority and rotation of Deans of Faculties. As in the case of Heads of Departments, petitioner is not personally aggrieved by the nomination. But he wants this court to examine the nomination of the four to see whether the provisions in the Act have been violated by the Chancellor or not. Appointment of Deans in a Faculty is for a period of two years. There are at present 16 Deans of Faculties. Four among them are to be nominated by the Chancellor in the orderof seniority by rotation. Among the 16 Deans of Arts, Social Science, Medicine and Law are otherwise members of the Senate. Of the remaining 12 faculties, according to respondents, Medicine, Applied Science, Oriental Studies, Social Science, Physical Education, Engineering & Technology, Dentistry and Education were given representation in the last Senate. The remaining six faculties namely, Homoeopathy, Management Studies, Science, Commerce, Fine Arts and Ayurveda were not represented. Even though the Dean of Homoeopathy Dr. Ravi M. Nair was nominated to the Senate for a period of two years from 24-11-88, he could continue in the Senate till 29-12-89 only since he ceased to hold the post of Dean. As such Dr. Nair was in the Senate only for a period of one year and one month. Talcing into consideration this aspect as well, Dr. Ravi M. Nair was nominated representing the Faculty of Homoeopathy. The other three nominees are the Deans of Faculty of Science, Faculty of Commerce and Faculty of Management Studies. They were so nominated depending on the seniority of the Department by rotation.

9. It is the further case of the respondents that the seniority of the Deans cannot be decided on the basis of service put in by them. The seniority in this case can be decided only on the basis of their age. That criteria was looked into in nominating the Deans as per the Notification dated 29-5-95. As stated earlier, when it is seen that two views are possible regarding the seniority by rotation of the Deans to be nominated by the Senate and one view has been adopted by the Chancellor, this court is not to substitute its view to that of the Chancellor. The result therefore is, the attack levelled against the nomination of the Heads of Departments and the Deans in O.P. 8334/95 has no legal ground. I over rule the contentions raised by the petitioner.

10. O.Ps. 11302/95 and 12977/95 relate to the nomination made by the Chancellor of the 4th respondent therein namely Sri R. S. Sasikumar as one representing a recognised research institution under Section 17 Other Members (2) of the Kerala University Act.Petitioners contend that the Kerala State Council for Child Welfare is not a Research Institution as contemplated by the Kerala University Act and the Statutes framed thereunder and so the 4th respondent can never be nominated as one representing a Research Institution.

11. Kerala State Council for Child Welfare is an Organisation registered on 14-9-1960 under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, Act 12 of 1955. The objects of that Society as per the Memorandum of Association, it is alleged, show that it has no connection with any research activity. The specific case put-forth by the petitioners in these original petitions is that the Kerala State Council for Child Welfare was never recognised institution by following the procedure laid down in Chapter 33 of the Kerala University First Statutes. Without following the procedure in Chapter 33 of the First Statutes, it is argued, no institution can be recognised by the University as a recognised institution.

12. Recognised research institution is not-defined under the University Act. A recognised institution has been defined in Section 2(19) of the Act to mean an institution for research or special studies other than an affiliated college recognised as such by the University. Chapter 33 of the First Statutes provides that the Syndicate shall recognise any institution engaged in research or specialised studies as a recognised institution. An institution which seeks recognition should submit an application to the Registrar giving the details prescribed in Statutes of Chapter 33. When such an application is filed, the Syndicate may after considering the views of the academic council, call for such further information as it may deem necessary relevant to the application by visiting the institution. On receipt of the further information and the enquiry report, if the Syndicate thinks fit, it may grant the application for such period as may be specified in the order. Thus for granting recognition to an institution, the application for the purpose should be considered by the Academic Council. On the basis of the reportof the Academic Council, the Syndicate may appoint a Committee for making an enquiry into the matters relating to the institution. Only thereafter can the Syndicate grant recognition to the institution. In the instant case, an application for recognition as Research Institute was filed by the third respondent, the Kerala State Council for Child Welfare before the Registrar on 2-2-95. On the same day it was placed before the Standing Committee on research and scholarships. That Committee recommended to constitute an Inspection Commission consisting of Dr. K. Saratchandran, Fr. K. A. Abraham, members of the Syndicate and Dr. G. Narayana Pillai, an expert. Third respondent was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1500/-towards the inspection fee for the Commission. The amount, according to petitioners, was deposited on 25-2-95 and on the same day the Commission submitted a report recommending to recognise the third respondent as a Research Institute. Petitioners have categorically averred that Sri G. Narayana Pillai the expert in the Commission was not a party to the said report. Report of the Committee was placed before the Vice-Chancellor and in exercise of his powers under Section10(13) of the Kerala University Act which entitles him to take immediate action in exercise of the powers vested in the Syndicate or the Academic Council, approved the decision of the Standing Committee. The Senate meeting held on 28-3-95 approved the same. It is the further case of the petitioners that the decision of the Standing Committee to send the Commission for inspection of the third respondent institution was placed before the Syndicate subsequent to 28-3-95. On these grounds, it is contended that the Kerala State Council for Child Welfare is not a research institution and the Syndicate of the Kerala University granted recognition without following the procedure laid down in Statute 33 of the Kerala University First Statutes.

13. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University in an attempt to justify the recognition given to the third respondent. In that counter affidavit the averments made by the petitioners that Sri V. S. Hareendranath is the Vice-President ofthe third respondent and he was a member of the Standing Committee on research and scholarship which appointed three members to inspect the facilities available with the third respondent is not denied. Further the case of the petitioner that the Expert, Sri G. Narayana Pillai did not sign the report of the Committee is also not controverted. According to counter affidavit, the Vice-Chancellor who was having the powers of the Academic Council exercised the powers of the Academic Council and recognition was given properly. The unwholly haste in which the third respondent has been recognised as a research institution coming within the purview of Section 17 Other Members (2) speaks volumes. I am not in a position to approve of the unwholly haste with which the matter was processed by the University. So also I am at a loss to understand how Kerala State Council for Child Welfare happened to be described as Kerata State Child Welfare Research Centre in the Minutes of the meeting held on 2-2-95 of the Standing Committee on research and scholarships. 4th respondent who is an Assistant Registrar of the Kerala University is the General Secretary of the Federation of the University Employees Organisation. He contested thrice for membership in the Senate. He did not succeed. Therefore he got the post of, Honourary Treasurer in the third respondent organisation and after getting the third respondent recognised as a Research Institution managed to get himself nominated to the Senate. This backdoor method adopted by the third respondent with the active connivance of the authorities of the University shows that the statutory provisions have been violated in this case. As procedure contemplated by the University First Statutes and Act have not been complied with in a bona fide manner, I have no hesitation in quashing the nomination of the 4th respondent to the Senate.

14. Petitioner in O.P. 10799/95 secured the highest mark in the B.Sc. (Physics) examination held by the Kerala University during March-April, 1994, she having secured 969 marks out of 1000. As per Section17 Other Members (3) Chancellor is to nominate one student having outstanding ability in Science.Petitioner having secured the highest marks in Physics, a Science subject, should have been considered by the Chancellor before effecting a nomination of the student under Section17 Other Members (3) of the Kerala University Act. According to petitioner, since the Chancellor has not considered her case while nominating the 4th respondent, the nomination should be interfered with by this court. This claim of the petitioner is countered by respondents on the ground that her case was also considered by the Chancellor before making the nomination of the 4th respondent as could be seen in Ext. R1(a). Ext. R1(a) is the provisional list of rank holders in various subjects of the B.Sc. final examination held in April-May, 1994. It is true that Ext.R 1(a) list prepared on 4-4-95 gave petitioner's name as against the subject Physics showing the total marks secured by her as 969 out of 1000. But the fact remains that the list as on 4-4-94 could not have been the one considered by the Chancellor because only a student who secured the highest mark in the subject who continues the studies can be in the field of choice. After the preparation of Ext. R1 (a) on 4-4-95, by Ext.P2 communication dated 3-5-95 petitioner was asked to report whether she is undergoing any course of study. In reply to that, she sent Ext.P3 communication dated 5-5-95. Thereafter alone could her name be included in the names of eligible students. Petitioner has specifically averred that the University did not prepare a list of rank holders after receipt of Ext.P3 communication for placing it before the Chancellor. The Chancellor nominated 4th respondent in the discipline Science on account of her having secured 894 marks out of 1000 in Statistics. Learned counsel representing the University advanced an argument that when the Chancellor nominates a student as having outstanding ability in Science, that nomination is not to be interfered with by this Court. This argument if accepted, will result in giving absolute unbridled arbitrary power to the Chancellor in making nomination. Such a power cannot be claimed by the Chancellor who is to act in conformity with the Kerala University Act and the Statutes made there-lunder. As is commonly accepted by all courtsarbitrariness is antithesis of fair play. The Chancellor, the highest authority under the Act, can at no circumstance be attributed with arbitrary power. If petitioner who secured the highest mark in Physics was not included in the list that was placed before the Vice-Chancellor, the action of the Chancellor cannot be considered to be proper. Respondents have no case in their counter affidavit that petitioner's name was also included in a list of qualified students prepared after receipt of Ext.P3 communication. In such a situation, I quash the nomination of the 4th respondent representing the students having outstanding ability in Science.

15. Petitioner in O.P. 10962/95 is the President of Kottarakkara Kashuandi Thozhilali Council, a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act. His contention is that under Section17 Elected Members (8) two members are to be elected by the registered trade unions in the University area. There was none elected from the trade unions and so the constitution of the Senate is improper.

16. As per the Statutes the electoral roll shall include only the registered trade unions in the University area which have a membership of over 2000 as on the first day of the May of the year succeeding calendar year to which returns under the Kerala Trade Unions Regulations relate. Returns which was submitted till May 1994 were considered and names of three Presidents were received from the Registrar of Trade Unions. All the three filed nomination to the two vacancies. The two candidates were proposed by each in addition of being a candidate. So as between the three, two could not be selected as having secured the highest number of votes. In such a situation, the University was not in a position to have two members elected from the three trade unions. The said action of the University cannot be faulted. The result is O.P. 10962/95 has only to be dismissed and I do so.

17. Petitioner in O.P. 10999/95 is thePresident of Budhanur Panchayat. As a member of the Panchayat he was elected to the Senate under Section 17 Elected Members (7) of the Kerala University Act. Whilereconstituting the Senate as per Notification dated 7-7-95, the four vacancies of representatives of local authorities of the District has been kept vacant. The said action is under challenge on the ground that as an elected member of the Budhanur Panchayat, he should have been included as a member of the Senate.

18. Last election to the Panchayat under the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1960 was held on 9-2-88. The term of the elected members under the Kerala Panchayat Act is five years. That period expired on 8-2-93 as per the terms of Section11 of the Kerala Panchayat Act. Section 11(1) of the Act stated that the term of office of the members of every Panchayat who are elected at ordinary elections shall be five years. It has a proviso stating that the Government may by Notification in the Gazette extend or reduce the said term by such period as may be specified in the Notification. By G.O.(P)16/93 Ext.P3 Government extended the term of office of all elected members of all Panchayats except Vellarada Panchayat for a further period of six months. As' per this Notification, the tenure of office of the elected members was thus extended to 9-8-93. Since election to the Panchayat could not be conducted within the said extended period, Government by G.O.(P)152/93 extended the term of office of all elected members of Panchayat in the State except Vellarada Panchayat for a further period of six months with effect from 10-8-93. Consequently the term of office of the elected members was extended till 9-2-94. Even within the extended period, election to Panchayat could not take place. So Government by G.O.(P)23/94/LAD, Ext.P7, appointed Administrative Committee with the outgoing members of the Panchayat and the President as the members and the President of the Administrative Committee. The Explanatory Note to that Notification makes it clear that in the light of the 73rd Amendment of the Constitution the term of the members of the Panchayat cannot be extended. But invoking the powers under Section 13 of the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1960, Government appointed administrative committees and President to the Panchayat. Section 13 of the KeralaPanchayats Act states that if the Government are satisfied that a Panchayat cannot be constituted by reason of difficulty in holding an election of the members of the Panchayat, by notification Government can appoint an Administrative Committee and the President thereof or appoint a Special Officer. The said provision does not mandate that the elected members of the Panchayat who were holding office pursuant to the earlier notification should be the members of the Administrative Committee. Government in their wisdom are at liberty to appoint anyone to be a member of the Administrative Committee. The Administrative Committee so constituted is to be treated as entirely different from the elected members of the Panchayat. The mere fact that the elected members continued to be the members of the Administrative Committee will not confer on them any right as elected members of the Panchayat. In other words, the elected members of Panchayat who were made members of the Administrative Committee as per Ext.P7 notification are not in office as elected members of the Panchayat.

19. Statute 14 in the Kerala University (Conduct of Elections to Various Authorities or Bodies) First Statutes, 1974 states that the names of persons who are on the electoral body 60 days before the date of publication of the roll alone shall be included in the electoral roll and such persons alone shall be entitled to participate in the election. It has a proviso to the effect that any person who ceases to be a member of an electoral body before the date of issue of ballot paper from the University Office shall not be entitled to participate in the election. Petitioner was an elected member of the Panchayat. As per the provision contained in Section 11 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, his term of office expired on 8-2-93. But by virtue of Exts.P5 and P6 the term of his office was extended up to 8-2-94. This was subsequent to the 73rd Amendment to the Constitution. Even conceding for argument sake that the extension of the term of office of the members given by Ext.P6 Notification is valid, it could be valid only till 8-2-94. Thereafter there was no elected member to the Panchayat in Kerala. Government appointed. Administrative Committees as providedunder Section13 of the Kerala Panchayats Act. Membership in the Administrative Committee cannot be equated to be same as elected member. Consequently from 8-2-94 petitioner was not a member of the local authority. His membership in the Administrative Committee will not cloth him with the rights of a member of the local authority. In this view of the matter, petitioner's name could not have been included in the electoral body 60 days prior to the publication of the roll. Consequently I cannot find any illegality in the action taken by the authorities of the University.

20. Petitioners in all these original petitions question the election of the members of the Syndicate on account of the wrong or illegal constitution of the Senate. Process of election to the Syndicate was initiated long back. Election has also taken place with the existing members of the Senate. Publication of the result-alone has been stayed by this Court. In such a situation, is this court to up set the election to the Syndicate? Statute 10 of the Kerala University (Conduct of Elections to Various Authorities or Bodies) First Statutes 1974 is in the following :--

'Election not invalid by reason of vacancies in electorates :-- (1) No election to an authority of the University shall be invalid for reasons of any vacancy among the persons entitled to vote at such election or an account of the non-receipt or loss during transmission of any notice, ballot paper, or any other paper connected with the election.'

As per this Statute, no election to any authority shall be invalid on account of the vacancy among the persons entitled to vote. So also if any person invalidly nominate or elected to the Senate exercised his vote for the election to the Syndicate, that election to the Syndicate will not become invalid on account of the setting aside of his election to the Senate. In the instant case the nomination of a member representing a recognised Research Institution and the nomination of one student as having outstanding ability in Science have been set aside. But before this decision, as members of the Seriate they exercised vote for electing the members of the Syndicate. Themere fact that two have been non-seated will not in any way invalidate the election to the Syndicate. Further it is trite law that this court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is not ordinarily to interfere with the process of election when the process of election has reached the fag-end. Viewed in the light of the statutory provision and the law governing the election. I do not find my way to upset the election to the Syndicate.

21. Before parting with the case, I will have to highlight an awkward situation that has been created by the State in not publishing the English translation of the Panchayat Raj Act and its amendment of 1995. Panchayat Raj Act was passed by the legislature on 23-4-96 and the Malayalam text was published on 23-4-94. This original petition came up before Justice Kamat on 19-8-95. On that day some of the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act was brought to the notice of the learned Judge. Since he was not knowing Malayalam, he could not proceed with the case. English translation of Panchayat Raj Act was published in the Gazette dated 10-7-95. The said Act underwent as amendment as per Act 7 of 1955. The Malayalam copy of that Amendment Act was published in the Gazette dated 5-8-95. Translation of that Amending Act has not so far been published.

22. As per Clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution, the State Legislature can prescribe any language other than the English language for use in Bills introduced in, or Acts passed by the Legislature or in Ordinance promulgated by the Governor. That provision further enjoins the State Legislature to have a translation of the Bill, Act or Ordinance or any order, rule, regulation or bye-law in English language in the official gazette. Clause (3) further proceeds to state that the translation in English language shall be deemed to be the authoritative text of the Bill, Act or Ordinance etc. So whenever a Bill is introduced in the Legislature or an Act is passed by the Legislature or an Ordinance is promulgated by the Governor or any order, rule, regulation or bye-law is issued in the exercise of the powers to make SubordinateLegislation English translation of the same should be published simultaneously. The said translation is to be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof. Such English translations are not forthcoming immediately after the passing of the Act, promulgation of the Ordinance of the issue of order, rule, regulation, bye-law etc. This is against the constitutional pro vision contained in Article 348(3) of the Constitution. The Government and the Legislature cannot ignore the said constitutional mandate. So, I take this opportunity to impress upon the Legislature and the Government to issue English translations of the Bills, Acts, Ordinances, Order, Bye-law etc. simultaneously with their introduction, passing, promulgation or issue as the case may be.

In the result, Original Petitions 8334/95, 10962/95 and 10999/95 are dismissed. O. Ps. 10799/95, 11302/95 and 12977/95 are allowed as indicated earlier in this judgment. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Copy of this judgment will be sent to the Chief Secretary and Secretary, Kerala Legislative Assembly for follow up action.