Rajpal Sharma and anr. Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderthis is in compliance to the decision of the hon'ble high court in d.b. civil special appeal no. 188/2002 dated 25.8.2003 and consequently the order of the vice chancellor issued vide letter no. vcs/2005/953 dated 11.5.2005 regarding term of office bearers of the rajasthan university student's union. i am enclosing herewith copy of the order dated 25.8.2003 for your perusal and consideration, contents of which are self explanatory.you are, therefore, advised to kindly hand over the charge of the office immediately to the undersigned so that proper action may be taken as per orders of the hon'ble high court.sd/-(prof. b.s. bijnaria)dean students' welfare10. the division bench in bharat bhushan's case (supra) considered the rights of students to elect representatives of their union. the division bench held that 'though, there is no specific provision for framing the constitution of the students' union, but in our opinion, in the exercise of powers conferred under section 4 of the act, in exercise of the executive powers, the constitution of the rajasthan university student's union, jaipur, was first of all framed on april 8, 1979.' the division bench further held that 'a look at section 18 of the act (university of rajasthan act, 1949) will show that it relates to the composition and term of office of the senate and it has to consist of ex-officio members. under clauses (xiii-a) the president of the central union (students) of the university is also to be an ex-officio - member, the said clause (xiii-a) was added by the university of rajasthan (amendment) ordinance (no.6) of 1974. thus the very fact that the president of the central union (students) of the university has to be an ex-officio member of the senate, goes to show that there is statutory recognition, not only of the president but also of the student's union of the university.' therefore division bench issued directions to the non-petitioners to hold the elections in accordance with the constitution of the student's union.11. that the controversy involved in the present case is different than the controversy involved in the case of bharat bhushan (supra). in the present case, the controversy is about 'the tenure of the office bearers of the rajasthan university student's union, 'whether it should be one year from the date of election or till the next election, whichever is earlier as contained in the constitution of the rajasthan university student's union, jaipur or it should expiry automatically on the last date of the session, as directed by hon'ble division bench vide order dated 25.8.2003 in d.b. special appeal (civil) no. 188/2002. the division bench in bharat bhushan pareek's case (supra) held that statutory recognition of the president of the central union (students' of the university and also to the student's union, after examining section 18 of the university of rajasthan act, 1946 and consequently directed the non-petitioners to hold election of student's union. however the division bench did not recognise any right of office bearers of the student's union under 'constitution' of rajasthan university student's union, jaipur as statutory right. on the other hand, the division bench in d.b. civil special appeal no. 188/2002 specifically directed that the term of the entire office bearers of the students union shall expire on the last date of session. the term of the students union runs parallel to the running of the classes. with the commencement of the written examination, the term of the student's union comes to an end. thus, before an office bearers is allowed to appear at the examination, his entire account should be cleared and also they should vacate the premises occupying as an office bearer. the constitution of student's union has no statutory force whereas judgment of division bench in dbsa no. 188/2002 has binding force. it is true that respondent university was not a party to dbsa no. 188/02, but directions issued were just and reasonable.the vice chancellor, by virtue of section 4 of the student's union constitution, is the pattern of the rajasthan university student's union. the pattern has to exercise a general supervision in respect of anybody under jurisdiction. the vice chancellor was justified and fully competent to issue order dated 11.5.2005 seeking compliance of the order of division bench in d.b. special appeal (civil) no. 188/2002 in rajasthan university students union, jaipur, which was under his jurisdiction.12. the hon'ble supreme court in university of delhi v. anand vardhan chandal (supra) held that right to participate in student's union activities and to contest students election is not a fundamental right. para-4 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:'we are of the view that the high court fell into patent error in holding that once the university admits a student, the right to contents the students union election is a part of the right of education and as such is fundamental right. this in n.p. punnuswamy v. returning officer, namakkal constituency (scr at p. 236) has authoritatively held that right to participate in elections to the state assemblies and parliament is not a fundamental right. it is only a statutory right. participation in the student union activities including elections cannot be placed on a higher pedestal.'13. the above discussion of facts and law will reveal that petitioners have neither any statutory right nor any fundamental right to hold their posts in the rajasthan university student's union after expiry of session and as such it cannot be said that orders dated 11.5.2005 and 14.5.2005 annexure 1 and 3 are contrary to any statutory law or contrary to the provisions of constitution. therefore, there is no infringement of statutory or constitutional right of the petitioners so as to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution. rather the said orders have been passed on the basis of directions of d.b. of the high court in d.b. special appeal no. 188/2002 dated 25th august 2003 therefore i do not find any substance in any of the learned counsel for the petitioners. consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

This is in compliance to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 188/2002 dated 25.8.2003 and consequently the order of the Vice Chancellor issued vide letter No. VCS/2005/953 dated 11.5.2005 regarding term of office bearers of the Rajasthan University Student's Union. I am enclosing herewith copy of the order dated 25.8.2003 for your perusal and consideration, contents of which are self explanatory.

You are, therefore, advised to kindly hand over the charge of the office immediately to the undersigned so that proper action may be taken as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court.

Sd/-

(Prof. B.S. Bijnaria)

Dean Students' Welfare

10. The Division Bench in Bharat Bhushan's case (supra) considered the rights of Students to elect representatives of their Union. The Division Bench held that 'though, there is no specific provision for framing the constitution of the Students' Union, but in our opinion, in the exercise of powers conferred under Section 4 of the Act, in exercise of the executive powers, the constitution of the Rajasthan University Student's Union, Jaipur, was first of all framed on April 8, 1979.' The Division Bench further held that 'A look at Section 18 of the Act (University of Rajasthan Act, 1949) will show that it relates to the composition and term of office of the Senate and it has to consist of Ex-officio Members. Under clauses (xiii-A) the President of the Central Union (Students) of the university is also to be an Ex-officio - Member, the said Clause (xiii-A) was added by the University of Rajasthan (Amendment) Ordinance (No.6) of 1974. Thus the very fact that the President of the Central Union (Students) of the University has to be an Ex-officio Member of the Senate, goes to show that there is statutory recognition, not only of the President but also of the Student's Union of the University.' Therefore Division Bench issued directions to the non-petitioners to hold the elections in accordance with the constitution of the Student's Union.

11. That the controversy involved in the present case is different than the controversy involved in the case of Bharat Bhushan (supra). In the present case, the controversy is about 'the tenure of the office bearers of the Rajasthan University Student's Union, 'whether it should be one year from the date of election or till the next election, whichever is earlier as contained in the constitution of the Rajasthan University Student's Union, Jaipur or it should expiry automatically on the last date of the Session, as directed by Hon'ble division Bench vide order dated 25.8.2003 in D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 188/2002. The Division Bench in Bharat Bhushan Pareek's case (supra) held that statutory recognition of the President of the Central Union (Students' of the University and also to the Student's Union, after examining Section 18 of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 and consequently directed the non-petitioners to hold election of Student's Union. However the division Bench did not recognise any right of office bearers of the Student's Union under 'constitution' of Rajasthan University Student's Union, Jaipur as statutory right. On the other hand, the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 188/2002 specifically directed that the term of the entire office bearers of the Students Union shall expire on the last date of Session. The term of the Students Union runs parallel to the running of the classes. With the commencement of the written examination, the term of the Student's Union comes to an end. Thus, before an office bearers is allowed to appear at the examination, his entire account should be cleared and also they should vacate the premises occupying as an office bearer. The constitution of Student's Union has no statutory force whereas judgment of Division bench in DBSA No. 188/2002 has binding force. It is true that respondent university was not a party to DBSA No. 188/02, but directions issued were just and reasonable.The Vice Chancellor, by virtue of Section 4 of the Student's Union constitution, is the pattern of the Rajasthan University Student's Union. The pattern has to exercise a general supervision in respect of anybody under jurisdiction. The Vice Chancellor was justified and fully competent to issue order dated 11.5.2005 seeking compliance of the order of Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) NO. 188/2002 in Rajasthan University Students Union, Jaipur, which was under his jurisdiction.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in University of Delhi v. Anand Vardhan Chandal (supra) held that right to participate in Student's Union activities and to contest students election is not a fundamental right. Para-4 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:

'We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in holding that once the University admits a student, the right to contents the students union election is a part of the right of education and as such is fundamental right. This in N.P. Punnuswamy v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (SCR at P. 236) has authoritatively held that right to participate in elections to the State Assemblies and Parliament is not a fundamental right. It is only a statutory right. Participation in the student union activities including elections cannot be placed on a higher pedestal.'

13. The above discussion of facts and law will reveal that petitioners have neither any statutory right nor any fundamental right to hold their posts in the Rajasthan University student's union after expiry of session and as such it cannot be said that orders dated 11.5.2005 and 14.5.2005 Annexure 1 and 3 are contrary to any statutory law or contrary to the provisions of constitution. Therefore, there is no infringement of statutory or constitutional right of the petitioners so as to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution. Rather the said orders have been passed on the basis of directions of D.B. of the High Court in D.B. Special Appeal No. 188/2002 dated 25th August 2003 therefore I do not find any substance in any of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.