IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26621 of 2011(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. REBIN B, 24 YEARS, S/O.D. BALACHANDRAN, REBINI, CHADAYAN KALI, KANJIKODE WEST P.O, PALAKKAD. 2. MANJU JOSE, 21 YEARS, D/O.JOSE MATHEW, PARAKUTHAZYAYIL, KOLANI P.O., CHUNKAM, THIDUPUZHA 3. SIBIN VARGHESE, 23 YEARS, S/O.M.C. VARGHESE, MANIYATTU HOUSE, PATHUKUDI, MANNARKAD P.O., PALAKKAD. 4. MUHAMMED UMAR FAROOK C.P, 20 YEARS, C.P. UMMER, CHAKKACHINTEPURAKKA HOUSE, PUTHIYAKADAPPURAM P.O.,TANUR, MALAPPURAM. 5. RIJU KURIAN THOMAS, 18 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS C.K., CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHANNANIKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM, 6. PREM KUMAR. R, 19 YEARS, S/O.P. RETNAKUMAR, VISHAKAM, MELAMCODU, VELLANAD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. IRNA N.C., 22 YEARS, D/O.N.K. CHANDRAN, NELLIKAL HOUSE, PERAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR 8. RAJI M.JOSEPH, 20 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH M.J., MUTHUKKATTIL HOUSE, CHATHANTHARA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 9. NISHA M., 24 YEARS, N. MUHAMMED KUNJU, EDAPPALLIL VEEDU, EDAPPALLYKOTTA P.O., CHAVARA ,KOLLAM 10. SWEETY MARIA KURIAN, 19 YEARS, D/O.K.A. KURIAN, KULANGARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULINKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA. 11. ANOOP KRISHNAN G., 20 YEARS, S/O.C. GOPALAKRISHNAN, ANOOP VIHAR, EZHUKON P.O., EDAKKIDOM N., KOOLAM. 12. DEEPAK T.PAUL, 19 YEARS, T.P. PAUL, THALCHIRAKUZHIYIL HOUSE NAZARETHHILL P.O., KURAVILANGAD, KOTTAYAM. WP(C).No. 26621 of 2011(C) 13. ARJUN J., 19 YEARS, S/O.JAYAPRAKASH M.P., MANAGALATH HOUSE EDANAD P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM. 14. AJMAL S., 18 YEARS, S/O.SALIM PALANJYIL KOCHUVEEDU, PADA NORTH KARUNAGAPALLY. 15. AMBILIKUTTAN B., 23 YEARS, S/O.BABUKUTTAN C, KOIPPALLIL HOUSE, ENNAKKADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 16. LIDA SUSAN JACOB, 23 YEARS, D/O.JOCOB MATHEW, PALCKAL HOUSE, KATTUVETTIYIL, KARUKACHAL P.O., KOKTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 636. 2. THE RETURNING OFFICER, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, (SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION), GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 636. 3. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADHARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 636. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, GRIEVANCE CELL DEPARTMENT STUDENTS UNION ELECTION 2011-2012 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 636. R3 BY ADV. MR.T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 26621 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE REGISTRAR OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE COLLEGE PRINCIPALS/DIRECTORS DIRECTING TO CONDUCT COLLEGE UNION ELECTIONS. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LIST OF OFFICE BEARERS AND THE MEMBERS OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION TO WHICH THE ELECTION IS SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON 14/10/2011. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOMINATION PAPER PRESCRIBED FOR ELECTION TO THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE NOMINATION OF THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT POINTING OUT ILLEGALITIES. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE RULING OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 26621 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are students of the University College of Medical Education affiliated to the 3rd respondent University. In this writ petition, they are challenging Ext.P4, an order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the nominations submitted by the petitioners in the election to be held in pursuance to Ext.P1 election notification. 2. Ext.P1 is the notification issued by the University containing the schedule of election and Ext.P3 is the format of the nomination paper to be submitted by the candidates. The format of the nomination paper required candidates to make a declaration, which reads as under:- II. I hereby declare that: (1) I am within the age limit prescribed in the election notification for contesting the election. (2) I am a full time regular student of the course. (3) I have no academic arrears as on date. I have passed all the examinations, the results of which have been declared and have not absented from any of the examinations the results of which are to be declared. (4) I have attained the minimum percentage of WPC No. 26621/11 :2 : attendance prescribed by the University for the course of study or 75%, whichever is higher. (5) I have been/have not been subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the University. (Strike off whichever is not applicable. If subjected to disciplinary proceedings, give full details of the case). ............................................................................................. ............................................................................................. (6) I am contesting for post of office bearer for the .......time/for the post of Executive Committee Member for the ............time. (Strike off whichever is not applicable.) (7) I will follow the code of conduct for candidates. (8) I have not been tried and/or convicted of any criminal offence or misdemeanor.” 3. The nomination so filled up is to be verified by the Head of the Department, and the Head of the Department is to give a verification report, which reads as under:- “Part IV-Verification Report by the concerned Head of the Department The declarations made by the candidate at Sl.Nos.II – 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 above have been verified with the records and found correct/incorrect. (Strike off whichever is not applicable. Furnish details if any of the statements is incorrect.)” 4. In so far as the nominations submitted by the petitioners are concerned, even according to them, instead of striking off the inapplicable portions of the verification report, the Head of the Department merely affixed his seal and signature. WPC No. 26621/11 :3 : When the nominations were submitted to him, the Returning Officer found the verification reports incomplete and it was therefore that by Ext.P4, the Returning Officer rejected the nominations with the following observations:- “The following nominations for the post referred below are rejected due to the incomplete verification report by the Head of the Department.” It is this action of the Returning Officer, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. As far as this writ petition is concerned, the correctness of the action of the Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination paper is what is called in question. The Returning Officer could have accepted nominations submitted, provided the nomination satisfied all requirements that are prescribed in Ext.P3 nomination form. Ext.P3 nomination form required the candidates to make the prescribed declaration and the Head of the Department to make a verification report in the manner prescribed. Admittedly, the verification report submitted by the Head of the Department was incomplete. Even if such incompleteness of the verification report is for the fault of the Head of the Department, fact remains that the nomination form submitted by the petitioners were WPC No. 26621/11 :4 : defective. The Returning Officer could not be expected to accept a defective nomination form and if that be so, Returning Officer could have only rejected the nomination forms in question. So viewed, the action of the Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination form submitted by the petitioners cannot be said to be faulty. 6. Petitioners contend that it was the responsibility of the Head of the Department to have made the verification report in accordance with the prescriptions in Ext.P3 and that if there is failure on the part of the Head of the Department, they should not be made to suffer. I am unable to agree with the petitioners. As already stated, the Returning Officer could have accepted the nominations only if the nomination is proper and valid in all respects. Irrespective of whether it is the fault of the Head of the Department or anybody else, so long as the nomination form is defective, the Returning Officer could not have accepted the nomination form. Therefore, even if the fault is that of the Head of the Department, the Returning Officer could not have accepted the nomination. 7. Petitioners have a case that another set of students, WPC No. 26621/11 :5 : whose nominations have been accepted, were also verified in the same manner and that the candidates themselves had corrected the verification report of the Head of the Department. Therefore, they contend that, those students are allowed to contest on the strength of a fabricated nomination form. 8. In this writ petition, the prayer sought is only against Ext.P4 and therefore, the acceptance or otherwise of the nomination form submitted by other set of students does not arise for consideration. That apart, those students are not made parties and even if there is any substance in what the petitioners contend, the remedy of the petitioners is to seek invalidation of the election. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp