SCA/7978/2008 2/ 4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7978 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================= DR VIPULBHAI JAMNADAS SOMANI - Petitioner(s) Versus VEER NARMAD SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY & 1 - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : MR KK TRIVEDI for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. MR DC DAVE for Respondent(s) : 1, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 2, ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 25/06/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule.
Mr.D.C. Dave, learned advocate for the respondent-University waives
service of rule. With the consent of the learned advocates, the
matter is taken up for hearing.
2. The
present petition is filed challenging the Notification dated 21st
May 2008, which is produced at Annexure ‘A’, whereby the petitioner,
who is serving as Reader in Mahatma Gandhi Rural Studies PG Section
was appointed as Officiating Head by Resolution No.52 passed by the
Syndicate in its meeting dated 13th December 2007. Taking
into consideration the contents of letter dated 17th
December 2007 bearing No.JN/ EST/ T/ 15077/ 2007 he was conferred
the status of Ex-Officio Member of the University, as he was
appointed as Officiating Head of the Said Department. The University
then decided to remove him from the Membership of the Senate, to
which he was elected uncontested.
3. Learned
advocate for petitioner submitted that it is not in dispute that the
petitioner is appointed as Officiating Head and by virtue of that
appointment he is conferred Ex-Officio Membership of the Senate. But
then his Membership of Senate, which he obtained by getting elected
uncontested cannot be taken away. Learned advocate for the petitioner
submitted that in the event the University decides to appoint someone
else as Head of Department in place of the petitioner as he is the
only officiating head, the petitioner will lose this Ex-Officio
Membership as well as the one to which he is elected uncontested.
4. The
Court finds substance in the submission of the learned advocate for
the petitioner. It was recorded on 28th May 2008 by this
Court that the petitioner is ready to relinquish his charge as
In-charge/ Officiating Head of the Department, Faculty of Rural
Studies. It was after recording this decision that the ‘notice’ was
issued so as to find out the stand of the University.
The
learned advocate for the University submitted that the University is
of the opinion that a person cannot be allowed to be a Member of the
Senate in two capacities. The petitioner is appointed as Officiating
Head and by virtue of that he gets Ex-Officio Membership of the
Senate. Therefore, he is to be removed from the Membership of the
Senate, to which he was elected uncontested.
Learned
advocate for the respondent-University relied upon Statute 287 of
South Gujarat University Statutes, 1998. The Statute reads as under:
ýS(a) If a
candidate elected to the Senate form (sic., from) more than one
constituency, he shall by notice in writing signed by him and
delivered to the Registrar of the University within seven days of the
publication in the Gazette of the result of the last of such
elections, choose which of these constituencies he shall represent
and such choice once made shall be conclusive;ýý
Reliance
placed is not well placed. What is provided in Statute 287 is, if
a candidate is elected to the Senate. In the present
case the petitioner is not elected from more than one constituencies.
He is elected from one constituency only. So far as another
Membership is concerned, it is the conferred one on account of he
being appointed as Officiating Head of the Department. In view of
that, Statute 287 cannot be said to have any application to the facts
of the present case. Learned advocate for the respondent-University
also contended that there is alternative remedy available under
section 59 of the Act. The Court finds that the same is not
applicable to the facts of the case.
5. The
contentions raised on behalf of the University cannot be accepted. In
view of that, the decision of the University of removing the
petitioner from the Membership of Senate, to which he was elected
uncontested, is hereby quashed and set aside. The petition is
allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim
