AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
The petitioners had submitted their nomination for standing in the elections to the School of Technology and Applied Sciences, Pullarikunnu, Kottayam. The first petitioner submitted her nomination for the post of Vice Chairperson (Lady), while the second petitioner submitted his nomination for the post of First Year UG Representative. Both nominations were rejected by the second respondent pointing out that the name of the College had not been specifically mentioned. According to the second respondent, the School of Technology and Applied Sciences has three schools, one at Pullarikkunnu, another at Edappally and the third at Chuttippara. Unless the names of the respective schools are specifically mentioned, the nominations could not be treated as valid.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, it is stated that the name of the College had not been specifically mentioned by the petitioners and hence the nominations were rejected.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent and the learned Government Pleader.
In Clause 21(8)(3) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Regulations for Constitution of students’ Union in Affiliated Colleges and conduct of elections to such bodies, it is stipulated that no nomination paper shall be rejected on technical grounds.
The petitioners are students of the School of Technology and Applied Sciences at Pullarikunnu. There is no dispute that the second respondent was appointed as a Returning Officer for the said college at Pullarikunnu. The nomination papers were submitted by the petitioners to the said respondent. In such circumstances, the mere omission to enter the name ‘Pullarikkunnu’ cannot be treated as a significant omission, so as to reject a nomination, in the light of Clause 21(8)(3) of the aforesaid regulations. The reason for rejection is hypertechnical. I am satisfied that the rejection of the nomination of the petitioners was not legally sustainable.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to include the petitioners in the final list of candidates for the elections pursuant to Ext.P1, based on the nominations submitted by them to the second respondent.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.