AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—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.
The Petitioner has, as Respondents to the petition, impleaded only the Delhi University and Bhim Rao Ambedkar College of the University of Delhi.
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.
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.
On request of the counsel for the Petitioner, the matter was passed over and has been taken up after lunch.
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.
None of the aforesaid shows that the reliefs claimed in the petition can be granted by issuing any direction against the Respondents.
The petition against the Respondents for the reliefs claimed is thus found to be misconceived and is dismissed.
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.