Muhammed Nisak P.M. vs Kerala Agricultural University

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner, a graduate student in the Kerala Agricultural University, the 1st respondent herein, challenges the inclusion of certain students in the election notified as per Exhibit P1. Exhibit P1 notifies the election to the Academic Council under the Kerala Agricultural University Act, 1971. The constituencies, as indicated in the notification itself, are three in number; being the Post Graduate students, the Research students and Teachers. The dispute is with respect to the electoral college of the Post Graduate students, which category has, in the Academic Council, two members who are entitled to be elected from amongst them. The petitioner is aggrieved with the inclusion of the Integrated Post Graduate students being participated in the elections and one of them having filed a nomination for being elected.

The petitioner admittedly is a graduate student and does not form part of the electoral college and is not entitled to participate in the election to any of the Constituencies prescribed in Exhibit P1 notification. The petitioner''s claim is that if an under-graduate in the Integrated course is permitted to participate, then the petitioner, who is also an under-graduate, should also be permitted to participate. It is also submitted that, in the last instance such persons were excluded. The petitioner seeks to challenge the same in the capacity of the Convenor of a students'' organization also.

The Kerala Agricultural University despite having been granted time, has not given any instructions to the Standing Counsel.

The preliminary issues which arise for consideration herein, are two fold; one the locus standi and another the non-inclusion of any persons, who are sought to be removed from the electoral roll, in the party array.

With respect to locus standi, it has to be noticed that the petitioner is an under-graduate, who is pursuing the graduate studies in the respondent-University. The petitioner''s claim on discrimination cannot be upheld, since definitely the petitioner is not similar with a student who is carrying on Integrated Post Graduate studies. A Post Graduate student who is carrying on such studies after graduation may have the capacity to raise an objection with respect to the inclusion of the Integrated Post Graduate students. However, the petitioner being only an under-graduate and not enrolled in a course which eventually leads to the award of Post Graduate Degree, cannot raise a contention that he should also be in the electoral roll of the Post Graduate students or is entitled to stand for the election to the constituency of Post Graduate students. The students in the Integrated Post Graduate course are students enrolled in a course which eventually leads to a Post Graduation. In such circumstance, the petitioner''s locus standi is found against him. The petitioner is not entitled to move the above writ petition.

Further, it is also to be noticed that the petitioner''s prayer is against the persons included in the rolls as Sl.Nos.464 to 540 and 568 to 679. None have been impleaded herein. Nor has a student been impleaded, even in a representative capacity. It is also to be noticed that the writ petition specifically avers that one of the students in the Integrated course is also standing for the election, having filed a nomination thereat. Even that person is not seen impleaded herein.

For all the above reasons, the writ petition is found to be not maintainable and the same is dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not found on the legitimacy or legality of the Integrated students of Post Graduate studies being included in the electoral roll and permitted to contest in the election, which question shall be left open to be considered in appropriate proceedings.