Vikrant Tiwari vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3324 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Writ Petition (M/S) No.3073 of 2023

Vikrant Tiwari                                           ....Petitioner

                                   Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                       ....Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Anil Dabral, Additional C.S.C. for the State.

                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner

seeks the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the

nature of mandamus directing and

commanding the respondents to permit

the petitioner for contest the election of

President for the Academic Session 2023-

24 of Government Degree College,

Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar

and also issue the nomination form as

per the election scheme issued by the

respondent no.3 (contained in Annexure

No.3 to the writ petition).

(ii) Issue a suitable writ order or direction

which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit

and proper in the circumstances of the

case.

(iii) Award the cost of the petition and may be

given to the petitioners."

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a

student of B.Com IIIrd Year in Government Degree College,

Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar ("the college"). He has

been preparing for contesting the election of President, but,

from this year onwards, Post Graduate classes have already

been started in the college. It is also the case of the petitioner

that as per the scheme of election, the position of President

Student Union is filled up by a Post Graduate student. The

petitioner seeks directions that since the admission in the

Post Graduate classes are still underway, the students may

not fulfil the criteria of attendance. Therefore, this year, the

election may be conducted as it was held in the previous

years, and the petitioner may be permitted to contest the

election of the President.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner has been preparing for elections for many

months; he is in the final year of his three years Graduation

course; this year, the college has been taking students for

Post Graduate courses, and as per the scheme, the admission

process would continue from 31.10.2023 to 04.11.2023,

whereas, according to the scheme of election, the nomination

for the election is to be done till 3:00 PM tomorrow, i.e.

03.11.2023. He would submit that he has already given a

representation to the Principal of the College, but no decision

has been taken.

5. Reference has been made to various documents

in support of the argument.

6. Admittedly, for the Student Union Election, the

post of President may be contested by a Post Graduate course

student, where there are Post Graduate classes. Admittedly,

in the college, from this year onwards, according to the

petitioner, admissions are being taken for Post Graduate

classes.

7. Learned State Counsel would submit that till

01.11.2023, 48 students have already been admitted in Post

Graduation under various disciplines.

8. If the scheme envisages that the position of the

President may be contested by a Post Graduate course

student, how could the petitioner make his claim? If the Post

Graduate course students have yet not attended the classes,

what would be its effect? Or, if none from the Post Graduate

classes makes nomination, what would be the next step? This

may, perhaps, be taken into consideration by the

Principal of the college. Merely on the ground that Post

Graduate courses are yet to begin, the petitioner may not be

granted the reliefs, which he seeks.

9. However, it is also true that if the petitioner has

made a representation to the Principal of the college, it is the

duty of the Principal of the college to decide the

representation of the petitioner before closure of the time for

nomination.

10. In view of what is stated hereinabove, this Court

is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference

in the writ petition. It deserves to be dismissed at the stage of

admission itself.

11. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.11.2023 Ravi Bisht