IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** C.W.P. No. 1654 of 2011 Date of Decision: 28.01.2011 *** Dr. Janmit Singh …Petitioner Versus Panjab University & Ors. …Respondents *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT *** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] 1) The petitioner is presently the Director of Panjab University Rural Regional Centre, Kauni, District Muktsar. He has been so appointed by the Vice Chancellor of the Panjab University on contract basis for a period not exceeding 364 days. The substantive post statedly held by the petitioner is of the Principal, Tarawati Memorial Degree College, Bringali, District Hoshiarpur. The petitioner by virtue of the substantive post held by him is said to have been elected as a Member of the Senate of the Panjab University for a period upto 31.10.2012. The petitioner’s sole grievance is that the respondent-University in a discriminatory manner and/or on mis-interpretation of the provisions contained in the University Calendar has not issued the ballot-papers to him so as to deprive him to cast his vote in the election for Faculties for which the ballot-papers and casting of votes is scheduled to be held today (28.01.2011) and the counting shall take place tomorrow i.e. 29.01.2011. 2) It is alleged that the above-stated action has been taken against the petitioner on the basis of the legal opinion which has already been overruled by the competent authority, namely, the Syndicate of the University in its meeting held on 21st January, 2011. Based upon the decision of the Syndicate, the Registrar of the Panjab University put up a note on 21st January, 2011 itself recommending that the petitioner should be treated eligible having right to caste his vote in the election of Faculties to be held today and tomorrow, as stated above. 3) The petitioner’s grievance is that the above-stated decision taken by the Syndicate and/or the official note put up by the Registrar of the University is lying under the carpet and no final decision has been taken by the competent authority, namely, the Returning Officer – respondent No.3. 4) Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and on perusal of the material on record including the note of the Registrar of the University, as reproduced at page 25 page 24 of the writ petition, I am of the considered view that it is imperative upon the prescribed authority to take final decision as to whether or not the petitioner is eligible and entitled to cast his vote in the election to be concluded by tomorrow (29.01.2011). 6) The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Returning Officer – respondent No.3 to take a decision by 3.30 p.m. today (28.01.2011) and in case the petitioner is held eligible to cast his vote; to issue the ballot-papers; and to permit him to exercise his franchise today itself, if so required by extending the time upto 5.00 p.m. 7) Rest of the consequences shall follow. 8) Let a dasti copy of this order duly attested by the Bench Secretary be issued to Ms. Anu Chatrath Kapoor, Advocate counsel for the petitioner for information and necessary action. 28.01.2011 Vishal shonkar {SURYA KANT} JUDGE