IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24306 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RINJU MOL.M. AGED 20 YEARS,D/O.RAVINDRAN MAKKUTTY NIVAS, AYITHARA, AYITHARA MAMBRAM P.O., KANNUR - 670643. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU THOMAS SMT.M.MEENA JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF STUDENT SERVICES, UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR, MANGATTUPARAMPU, KANNUR - 670702. 2. RETURNING OFFICER, PRNSS COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670702. 3. PRINCIPAL I PRNSS COLLEGE, MATTANNUR KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. ANOOP K, IIIRD B.A. HISTORY PRNSS COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. JITHINA N., 2ND B COM, PRNSS COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT 6. SIBILA K, 2ND B SC PHYSICS, PRNSS COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. VISHNUPRIYA, 3RD B.A HINDI, PRNSS COLLEGE MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT 8. LIPNA.C.K. 2ND B SC PHYSICS, PRNSS COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 9. VANEESH M.B. 3RD B.A. ECONOMICS, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670702. 10. REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR, MANGATTUPARAMPU, KANNUR- 670702. ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE FOR R5,6,8 & 9 SRI.E.C.BINEESH FOR R5,6,8 & 9 ADV.M.SASEENDRAN SRI.D.GOPAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 24306/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE LYNDOH COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION EXTRACT. P2. COPY OF THE LIST DTD.30.7.2010 OF THE CANDIDATES. P3. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.29.7.10. P4. COPY OF THE ELECTION SCHEDULE DTD.23.7.2010. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 24306 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a student of Mattannur PNRSS College, Kannur. She challenges the action of the 2nd respondent-Returning Officer of the college appointed for conducting the college union election, on the ground that nominations of the same person for more than one post have been accepted by the Returning Officer, contrary to clause 6.5.6 of Ext.P1 recommendation of the Lyngdoh Committee, which has been approved by the Supreme Court of India. The respondents would contend that there is no violation of clause 6.5.6 of Ext.P1. Therefore, the only question is whether, by accepting the nominations of the same candidate for more than one post, clause 6.5.6 of Ext.P1 has been violated. 2. The said clause reads thus; “6.5. Eligibility Criteria for Candidates 6.5.1...... xxx xxx xxx xxx 6.5.6. The candidate shall have one opportunity to contest for the post of office bearer, and two opportunities to contest for the post of an executive member.” Going by the ordinary meaning of that clause, the clause says that a candidate can contest for the post of office bearer during his study in the college only once and twice for the post of an executive member. I w.p.c.24306/10 2 cannot understand that clause to mean that the same candidate cannot file nominations for more than one post. As such, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge