IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1499 of 2011() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26621/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): --------------------- 1. REBIN.B. 24 YEARS, S/O D.BALACHANDRAN, REBINI, CHADAYAN KALI, KANJIKODE WEST (PO), PALAKKAD. 2. MANJU JOSE, 21 YEARS, D/O.JOSE MATHEW, PARAKUTHAZYAYIL, KOLANI (PO), CHUNKAM, THODUPUZHA. 3. SIBIN VARGHESE, 23 YEARS, S/O.MC.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 (PO), 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 (PO), 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 (PO), CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 10. SWEETY MARIA KURIAN, 19 YEARS, D/O.K.A.KURIAN, KULANGARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULINKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA. WA.1499/11 11. ANOOP KRISHNAN.G., 20 YEARS, S/O.C.GOPALAKRISHNAN, ANOOP VIHAR, EZHUKON (PO), EDAKKIDOMN, KOOLAM. 12. DEEPAK T.PAUL, 19 YEARS, THALCHIRAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, NAZARETHHILL (PO), KURAVILANGAD, KOTTAYAM. 13. ARJUN.J., 19 YEARS, S/O.JAYAPRAKASH.M.P., MANGALATH HOUSE, EDANAD (PO), PALA, KOTTAYAM. 14. AJMAL.S., 18 YEARS, S/O.SALIM PALANJYIL KOCHUVEEDU, PADA NORTH KARUNGAPALLY. 15. AMBILIKUTTAN B., 23 YEARS, S/O.BABUKUTTAN.C., KOIPPALLIL HOUSE, ENNAKKADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 16. LIDA SUSAN JACOB, 23 YEARS, D/O.JACOB MATHEW, PALCKAL HOUSE, KATTUVETTIYIL, KARUKACHAL (PO), KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, UNIVESITY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 636. 2. THE RETURNING OFFICER, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION (SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION), GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 636. 3. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADHARSINI 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. BY SC SRI.T.A.SHAJI. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1499 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. Appeal is filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge upholding rejection of the nomination papers submitted by the appellants for election to the various positions in the College Union. 2. Heard counsel for the appellants and the Standing Counsel Sri.T.A.Shaji, who took notice for the respondents. 3. After hearing both sides and after going through the judgment, what we notice is that the procedure for submission of nomination papers is first by filling up the nomination papers by the candidates and then verification of clauses 1 to 5 by the Heard of the Department and certification of correctness or otherwise of the statements in the declaration furnished. So far as clauses 1 to 4 are concerned, those are only positive statements by the candidates and unless the Head of the Department states WA.1499/11 2 in the nomination paper that the declaration by the candidate is incorrect, that has to be accepted as such. So far as clause 5 is concerned, what we notice is that the same is bracketed and the fact to be certified is whether the candidate has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings or not. Appellants' case is that they have claimed that they have not been subjected to any disciplinary proceedings. However, it appears that there was omission on the part of the Head of the Department to certify whether the candidate has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings or not. The specific case of the appellants is that the omission is on the part of the Head of the Department and therefore, the nomination papers submitted by the candidates cannot be rejected. In principle, we agree with this contention, because it is the duty of the Head of the Department to verify as to whether the claim made by the candidates with reference to clauses 1 to 5 are correct or not. If the Head of the Department just signs the document, it goes without saying that the candidate's statements have been accepted as such. If in clause 5 one of the bracketed item is not scored off, it was the duty of the Head of the Department to verify which is correct and score off the WA.1499/11 3 unnecessary portion. In other words, unless the candidate is found ineligible for any ground noted by the Head of the Department, there is no justification for rejecting the nomination with reference to clauses 1 to 5 merely because Head of the Department did not score off unnecessary portion. So far as other items are concerned, if there is any omission, the Returning Officer is free to reject the nomination. We notice from Exhibit P4 that some nominations are rejected on account of minor mistake of incorrect spelling, which is rather self-evident because corresponding electoral roll number is also given. 4. Since we feel that the appellants should not be denied opportunity to participate in the election on account of the mistake or omission on the part of the Head of the Department, the matter requires reconsideration. We, accordingly, allow the Writ Appeal vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge with a direction to the respondents to postpone the election, re-notify the same and conduct fresh election after verifying the nomination papers once again and accept such nominations which are valid. If there is any omission on the part of the Head of the Department in WA.1499/11 4 verifying or certifying the correctness of the statements given by the candidates, it is for the Returning Officer to return the nomination papers to the Head of the Department to get it done by the Head of the Department. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE vgs