Delhi High Court
Dr. Tajinder Pal Singh vs University Of Delhi & Anr on 24 August, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
$~74
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6162/2011 & CM No.12430/2011 (for interim directions)
DR. TAJINDER PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh with Mr.
Vishal Chaudhary & Mr. Nalendu
Kumar, Advs.
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 24.08.2011
1. The petition has been filed claiming the following reliefs:
"A) Direct the Respondents, by an appropriate writ,
order or direction, to include the name of the
petitioner in the electoral roll of DUTA for the
session 2011-2013 after completing the formalities
of submission of fee for membership of DUTA for
the session 2011-2013.
B) Direct the Respondents, by an appropriate writ,
order or direction to allow the petitioner to contest
the election for the post of DUTA Executive for
the session 2011-2013 after giving fresh time for
filing the nomination papers.
(C) Direct the Respondents, by an appropriate writ,
order or direction for postponing the DUTA
election scheduled to be held on 25.08.2011, from
25.08.2011 to any other suitable date by giving a
fair opportunity to the petitioner for contesting the
DUTA election for the session 2011-2013.
2. The petitioner has, as respondents to the petition, impleaded only the
Delhi University and Bhim Rao Ambedkar College of the University of
Delhi.
3. The counsel for the respondent No.1 University appearing on
advance notice states that the respondent No.1 University has got no role in
the elections of DUTA and the relief has been claimed against the wrong
persons.
4. The counsel for the petitioner though contends that the respondent
No.1 University controls the DUTA but seeks time to show the provisions
in this regard.
5. On request of the counsel for the petitioner, the matter was passed
over and has been taken up after lunch.
6. The counsel for the petitioner states that since the Election Officer for
the DUTA election had requested the Dean/Head/Principal of various
Colleges/Institutions in the University to forward the list of faculty members
and further since the University facilitates the election to DUTA by
suspending the work in the Colleges and further since the membership fee
of DUTA is deducted by the University/Colleges affiliated to it from the
salary and forwarded to DUTA, it shows the tacit control by the University
of DUTA. He thus contends that the reliefs aforesaid can be granted against
the University. It is yet further contended that the office bearers of DUTA
are also employees of the University.
7. None of the aforesaid shows that the reliefs claimed in the petition
can be granted by issuing any direction against the respondents.
8. The petition against the respondents for the reliefs claimed is thus
found to be misconceived and is dismissed.
9. The counsel for the petitioner at this stage states that the respondent
no.2 College however did not forward the name of the petitioner as its
faculty member and owing whereto the petitioner's name remained to be
included in the electoral roll. In this regard it may be noticed that the
petitioner is under suspension from the respondent no.2 College. From the
averments in the petition, it is found that the membership of the petitioner of
DUTA was not dependent upon the respondent no.2 College forwarding the
name of the petitioner and it was always open to the petitioner to have the
name included in the electoral roll if entitled to irrespective of whether
forwarded by the respondent no.2 College or not. Moreover, the said
grievance even if any of the petitioner, has no relevance meaning to the
reliefs claimed in the petition and would be immaterial.
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
CM No.12431/2011 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AUGUST 24, 2011
gsr/bs..
