Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish Chandra Gurjar vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 August, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Kuldeep Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11730/2022
Jagdish Chandra Gurjar S/o Shri Veni Ram Gurjar, Aged About 28
Years, Village Nai Basti, Sindhiyo Ka Badgaon, Balathal District
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Through Its Registrar,
Mohal Lal Sukhadia University Udaipur.
3. Registrar Cum Chief Returning Officer, Mohan Lal
Sukhadia University, Udaipur.
4. Chief Election Officer, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University,
Udaipur, Students Union Election 2022-23, Mohan Lal
Sukhadia University, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sukesh Bhati.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Shrimali.
Mr. Rajesh Punia.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
18/08/2022
The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner
Jagdish Chandra Gurjar seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the effect
and operation of Clause 7(a)(ii) of the Constitution of
Mohan Lal Sukhadia University Students' Union 2022-23
may kindly be declared ultra vires being violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and same may
kindly be quashed and set aside.
(2 of 5) [CW-11730/2022]
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be directed to allow / permit the
petitioner to contest election of Research Representative
of Mohan Lal Sukhadia University Students' Union
Elections-2022-23 scheduled to be held on 26.08.2022 by
providing up to two years upper age relaxation."
Learned counsel Shri Sukesh Bhati, representing the
petitioner, vehemently and fervently contended that the Clause
7(a)(ii) of the Constitution of University & College Students' Union
2022-23 of Mohan Lal Sukhadia University (hereinafter referred to
as 'Constitution of MLSU 2022-23') is illegal, arbitrary and
unconstitutional inasmuch as it curtails the rights of the students
to contest election for the post of Research Representative after
crossing the age of 28 years. He submits that elections were not
held for the Research Representatives for the previous two years
owing to the Covid pandemic and thus, the relaxation provided by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of in Re: cognizance
for extension of limitation (Miscellaneous Application No.
21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in
suo motu Writ Petition (c) No. 3 of 2020), deserves to be
applied to the forthcoming students election. The said upper age
limit deserves to be extended and for this purpose, the upper age
eligibility criterion under Clause 7(a)(ii) of the Constitution of
MLSU 2022-23 should be struck down.
In support of his contentions, Shri Bhati has placed reliance
on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of University of
Kerala Vs. Council, Principals, Colleges, Kerala and Ors.
[(2011)14 SCC 363] and urges that in the said judgment,
(3 of 5) [CW-11730/2022]
Hon'ble the Supreme Court approved the recommendations of the
Lyngdoh Committee, wherein it has been recommended that the
maximum age limit for which the students can legitimately contest
the elections should be enhanced to 30 years. He urges that the
situation in the present scenario is very harsh because the
elections were not held for the previous two years owing to the
Covid pandemic and thus, the age relaxation is required to be
extended and consequently, a provisional direction be issued to
permit the petitioner, who is presently aged about 28 years, to
contest the election for the Research Representative post.
Per contra, learned counsel Shri Rajesh Punia and Shri
Himanshu Shrimali, representing the respondents, vehemently
and fervently contended that there is no vested legal or
fundamental right of the petitioner to contest the election. They
drew the Court's attention to the order dated 31.07.2013 passed
by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shrikant
Shrivastava Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.8951/2013 decided on 31.07.2013], wherein an
exactly similar clause of age limit as was prevailing in the
Constitution of Students' Union at the relevant point of time was
approved after taking into account the judgment in the case of
University of Kerala (supra).
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar.
The relevant clause 7(a)(ii) of the Constitution of MLSU
2022-23 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
"7. a. ii. For Research Representative the maximum
age limit to legitimately contest an election would
be 28 years and they can contest election only for
(4 of 5) [CW-11730/2022]
Research Representative of the Apex / Central
Students' Union provided they have deposited
requisite fee in the University."
We are of the firm view that every student admitted into a
College/ University does not have fundamental right to contest the
Student Body elections. The Constitution of MLSU 2022-23
provides the broad guidelines, under which the students can be
allowed to participate in the elections. These guidelines cannot be
said to be arbitrary, illegal or onerous in any manner whatsoever.
Putting an upper age limit for the elections to the students' bodies
is a very healthy practice because it allows the younger students
to take part in the election activities while restricting those who
have been in the system for a prolonged period. So far as the
aspect of the COVID pandemic and the directions for extension of
time given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Re: cognizance for
extension of limitation (supra), suffice it to say that these
extensions were in relation to the filing of cases in the Courts,
which is a statutory right of the litigants who were prevented from
approaching the Courts owing to the COVID 19 pandemic situation
and thus, the limitations provided in the statutes for filing cases
were extended. There cannot be any equivalence in the matter of
age limit for contesting the students' election and the limitation
provided for filing cases in the Courts. The latter right is exercised
under the statutory provisions and if such a right is defeated
owing to "vis major", the Courts always step forward for protecting
the rights of the citizens.
An identical provision in the Students' Union Constitution
which is challenged in this writ petition was prevailing in the case
of Shrikant Shrivastava (Supra) and the Hon'ble Division Bench
(5 of 5) [CW-11730/2022]
repelled the challenge laid to the said condition imposing the age
limit for contesting the elections. Needless to say that a student
gets admitted into an academic institution for studies which is a
fundamental right. However, there is no fundamental right of any
student to contest an election. Any student admitted in the
educational institution can contest an election only if he or she is
qualified for the same under the prevailing Constitution. The
petitioner is beyond the age prescribed in the Constitution of
MLSU 2022-23 for contesting the elections and thus, he cannot be
allowed to do so.
It is our firm opinion that the age restriction imposed by
condition No.7(a)(ii) of the Constitution of MLSU 2022-23
reproduced supra, is not illegal, arbitrary or onerous in any
manner so as to strike the same down while exercising the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed as being
devoid of merit.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
51-Prashant/Pramod-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
