IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 38114 of 2008(K) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------------- KIRAN K.R., S/O.K.N.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 19 YEARS, KUNDOLY HOUSE, PAMPOOR, KUTOOR P.O., TRICHUR-680 013, (II YEAR BSC CO-OPERATION, BANKING AND MANAGEMENT, KERALA AGRL. UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680 656). BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS : ----------------------- 1. KERALA AGRL. UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680 656. 2. THE RETURNING OFFICER, ELECTION TO COLLEGE UNION 2008-09, COLLEGE OF CO-OPERATION, BANKING AND MANAGEMENT, KERALA AGRL. UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680 656. BY SRI. RENJITH THAMPAN, SC , UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 38114 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner had filed Exhibit P2 nomination for the election to the College Union of the respondent University, and that was rejected. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Exhibit P3 complaint before the Returning Officer. In Exhibit P3, the Returning Officer passed the following order. “ As the nomination is specifically to the post of class representatives, the class to which it is meant is to be mentioned clearly and that is the most important part of the nomination paper. In your nomination paper, it was not mentioned to which post you are nominated.” It is challenging the rejection of his above nomination, the writ petition is filed. 3. Learned Standing Counsel reiterated the grounds of rejection as mentioned in Exhibit P3. W.P(C). No. 38114 /2008 2 I do not find any merit in the grounds relied upon by the Returning Officer for rejecting the nomination submitted by the petitioner. On a perusal of Exhibit P3, it will be seen that nomination is for “class representative” and column 3 of Exhibit P2 shows that the nomination was sought for from the second year class. If that be so, I cannot find any ambiguity in Exhibit P2 either regarding the post to which nomination is sought for or regarding the class for which election is sought. If that be so, rejection of the petitioner's nomination has to be held as illegal and I do so. Second respondent is directed to accept Exhibit P2 nomination made by the petitioner and allow him to participate in the election scheduled to be held on 2/01/2009. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm