High Court Madras High Court

H. Mohammed Ali vs S. Maragatha Sundaram on 21 August, 2007

Madras High Court
H. Mohammed Ali vs S. Maragatha Sundaram on 21 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT


DATED : 21/08/2007


CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR


WRIT APPEAL (MD) No.331  of 2007
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007


H. Mohammed Ali
Muslim Arts College,
Thiruvithancode
Kanyakumari District.	      ... 	Appellant



vs.


1. S. Maragatha Sundaram
   S/o.P. Sankara Narayanan

2. The Chancellor,
   Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
   Chennai.

3. The Vice Chancellor,
   Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
   Tirunelveli.	

4. The Registrar,
   Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
   Tirunelveli.			... 	Respondents


	Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 21.07.2007 made in W.P.No.3519 of 2004.


!For Appellant    	...   	Mr.V. Vijayashankar
	

^For Respondent    	...  	Mr. Saravanan
				for Mr.R. Subramanian


:JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.K.MISRA,J)

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 21.7.2007 in
W.P.No.3519 of 2004, whereunder the learned single Judge allowed the writ
petition filed by the present Respondent No.1 and quashed the order of the
Chancellor of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University.

3. The writ petitioner (present Respondent No.1) is a teacher and also a
registered graduate of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, which has been
constituted under the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act, 1990, hereinafter
referred to as “the Act”. The University consists of Senate, Syndicate and a
Standing Committee on Academic Affairs. Sections 19 and 23 of the Act relate to
constitution of the Senate and the Syndicate respectively. The main question
raised is relating to election to the Syndicate from Senate.

4. The provisions contained in Sections 19 and 23 of the Act, to the
extent relevant for the present case, are extracted hereunder:-
” CHAPTER III
THE SENATE AND THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC AFFAIRS.
POWERS AND DUTIES.

19. (a) The Senate shall consist of the following members, namely:-
(1) to (13) . . . (omitted as not necessary)
Class II – Other Members.

(1) One Member elected by teachers of each affiliated college;
(2) and (3) . . . (omitted as not necessary)
(4) Two members elected by registered graduates in each revenue district
within the University area from among themselves;
(5) to (7) . . . (omitted as not necessary).”

“CHAPTER IV.

THE SYNDICATE.

23.(a) … (omitted as not necessary)

(b) The Syndicate shall, in addition to the Vice- Chancellor, consist
of the following members, namely :-

Class I – Ex-officio Members
(1) to (7) … (omitted as not necessary)
Class II – Other Members.

(1) . . . (omitted as not necessary)
(2) Two members elected by teachers of affiliated colleges, other than
principals, from among themselves who are members of the Senate, in accordance
with the system of proportional representation by means of the single
transferable vote.

Explanation – For the purpose of this item “teachers” shall mean those
teachers elected to the Senate by the teachers of the affiliated colleges from
among themselves;

(3) . . . (omitted as not necessary)
(4) One member, not falling under any of the above three categories,
elected by the Senate from among its members;
(5) to (7) . . . (omitted as not necessary)”

5. Learned single Judge on interpreting the provisions contained in
sections 19 and 23 has concluded that a teacher who is elected to the Senate not
in his capacity as a teacher but in his capacity as a registered graduate would
be eligible for contesting to the office of the Member of the Syndicate as per
Section 23(4) of the Act. On that basis, the learned single Judge has observed
that the writ petitioner was eligible to contest for the membership of the
Syndicate as a registered graduate notwithstanding the fact that he was also a
teacher. Such conclusion is being challenged by the fourth respondent in the
writ appeal.

6. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is
to the effect that since one member can be elected by the teachers of each
affiliated college and since two members can be elected to the Senate by
registered graduates from among themselves as contemplated in Section 19(1) and
(4) and since under Section 23(2) two members can be elected to the Syndicate by
teachers, who are members of the Senate, any teacher should be excluded from the
arena of consideration coming within Section 23(4) of the Act.

7. Section 23(4) of the Act lays down that one member falling under any of
the above three categories can be elected by the Senate from among its members.
Category(2) relates to two members elected by teachers of affiliated colleges
from among themselves who are the members of the Senate. Explanation to such
provision makes it clear that the expression “teachers” means those teachers
elected to the Senate by the teachers of the affiliated colleges from among
themselves. In other words, the person who is elected as a registered graduate,
notwithstanding the fact that he is also a teacher, does not come within
category (2) and obviously such a person cannot seek for election from category
(2) which specifically envisages that a teacher who is elected to the Senate as
such in his capacity as a teacher can be eligible under category (2).

8. Learned single Judge has adopted the above interpretation. Such
interpretation given by the learned single Judge is clearly in accordance with
the provisions contained in Section 23 of the Act and more particularly the
explanation to category (2). Learned single Judge has rightly observed that
Section 19 of the Act does not exclude a teacher from becoming a Senate member
from the constituency of registered graduate notwithstanding the fact that he is
also a teacher.

9. In view of the above conclusion, we do not find any scope to interfere
with the decision of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.

sms/dpk.

To:

1. The Chancellor,
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Chennai.

2. The Vice Chancellor,
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Tirunelveli.

3. The Registrar,
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Tirunelveli.