AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
Petitioners are the students of the third respondent college. They had submitted their nominations for the post of University Union Councillor. The nominations submitted by the petitioners were rejected against which they preferred a complaint to the Grievance Cell, as evidenced by Ext.P5 and Ext.P6. By report dated 18.09.2026, the Grievance Cell dismissed the said complaint, pointing out that the documents submitted along with the nomination papers were incomplete. Challenging the aforesaid order of the Grievance Cell, petitioners preferred an appeal to the Principal as per Ext.P8, and thereafter, they have approached this Court in this writ petition.
Two students of the college have impleaded in this writ petition as additional respondents 7 and 8. Along with the impleading petition, an affidavit has been filed wherein they have stated that the petitioners ought to pursue their statutory remedies by way of an appeal, instead of directly approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that the genuineness of the admit cards produced by the petitioners before the Returning Officer is doubtful and that the petitioners names have not been mentioned in the admit cards which could not have been a mistake and therefore an enquiry is needed to identify the reasons.
I have heard Sri.Vijay Sankar V.H., the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Varsha Bhaskar, the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6, apart from Sri.Mohammed Siyad M.F., the learned Standing counsel for the University and Sri.Avaneesh Koyikkara, the learned counsel for the additional respondents 7 and 8.
When the matter was taken up for consideration on 25.09.2026; this Court passed an interim order directing the nomination papers submitted by the petitioners to be included in the final list of valid nominations for the post of University Union Councillor, after accepting their nominations as valid. The reasons mentioned in the interim order has relevance at this stage while considering the writ petition finally and hence it is reproduced as below :-
3.Since Clause 21(8)(iii) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Regulations for the Constitution of Students’ Unions in Affiliated Colleges, University Teaching Departments and Centres, and for the Constitution of the University Students’ Union and the Conduct of Elections, stipulates that no nomination paper shall be rejected on technical grounds, the question to be considered at this stage is whether there is any prima facie reason to regard the rejection of the nomination papers of petitioners as on technical grounds.
4.It is conceded by the respondents 3 to 6 that the college has not yet issued identity cards to the first-year students. Both petitioners are first-year students and therefore they could not have produced identity cards. The only document available with them were their admit cards, which they had concededly produced before the Returning officer. Respondents contend that the names of petitioners were not there in the admit cards. In the copy handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4, it is noticed that, though petitioners’ names are not entered in their admit cards, the Principal of the college has endorsed his signature over the photographs on the admit cards, thereby confirming the petitioners’ identity. The petitioners’ admission numbers are also recorded on the cards. In this context it is apposite to note that Ext.P1 and Ext.P2, the nominal rolls, numbers of the first and second petitioners tally with that in the admit card. Therefore, there is no dispute that the petitioners are students of Sree Sankara College, Kalady; and their identity has even been confirmed by the Principal, as evidenced from the admit cards mentioned above.
5.In such circumstances, the rejection of the nomination paper due to the non-production of identity cards and for the omission of entering the names in the admit cards has to be regarded as a technical ground. Accordingly, the rejection of the petitioners’ nomination is prima facie incorrect.
Though the learned counsel for the additional respondents 7 and 8 vehemently contended that the appellate remedy has not been pursued by the petitioners, it is evident from Ext.P7 that, initially a complaint was filed before the Grievance Cell and thereafter an appeal was filed before the Principal of the college. Though the order of the Principal has not been produced, the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 fairly submitted that the Principal had rejected the appeal submitted by the petitioners. In such circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of respondents 7 and 8, that petitioners had not availed their appellate remedy is without any merit.
The learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 submitted that, petitioners could have pursued their appellate remedy before the Vice Chancellor and, therefore, they have not exhausted all the alternative remedies available to them. Though the said contention seems to have some merit, it is noticed that the elections are scheduled to be held on 29.09.2026. Therefore, relegating the petitioners to their alternative remedy of appeal, if available before the Vice Chancellor, the same would not be effective and hence the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by this Court to entertain the writ petition is justified.
As the elections are taking place tomorrow, I am of the view that petitioners nominations ought to be treated as valid and that they should be permitted to participate as candidates in the said election.
Accordingly this writ petition is allowed, and the interim order dated 25.09.2026 is hereby made absolute.