छात्र संघ चुनावों के कल नतीजे नहीं होंगे जारी, हाईकोर्ट में दायर रिट के अंतिम निर्णय पर होगा निर्भर

Breaking चर्चा में बड़ी ख़बरें राजनीति सरकार-प्रशासन हरियाणा हरियाणा विशेष

Yuva Haryana
Chandigarh, 16 Oct, 2018

हरियाणा में अप्रत्यक्ष रुप से छात्र संघ चुनाव कराने के फैसले के बाद जहां छात्र संगठन विरोध कर रहे हैं वहीं दूसरी तरफ अब यह मामला हाईकोर्ट में पहुंच गया है। आज पंजाब हरियाणा हाईकोर्ट में इन चुनावों को लेकर याचिका दाखिल की है जिसके बाद हरियाणा सरकार को नोटिस जारी किया गया है।

हाईकोर्ट में मामला पहुंचने के बाद अब हाईकोर्ट ने साफ कर दिया है कि कल छात्र संघ चुनावों के नतीजे घोषित नहीं किए जाएंगे। हाईकोर्ट में दायर रिट के अंतिम निर्णय के बाद ही छात्र संघ चुनाव के नतीजे निर्भर करेंगे।

बता दें कि हरियाणा के सभी यूनिवर्सिटी और कॉलेजों में कल छात्र संघ चुनाव होने हैं, लेकिन हरियाणा में करीब 22 साल बाद छात्र संघ चुनाव हो रहे हैं और वो भी अप्रत्यक्ष तरीके से हो रहे हैं। इसी का विरोध छात्र संघठन कर रहे हैं।

पंजाब हरियाणा हाईकोर्ट में वरिष्ठ वकील रविंद्र ढुल ने युवा हरियाणा को बताया कि सरकार द्वारा करवाए जा रहे छात्र संघ चुनाव के फैसले को माननीय कोर्ट में चुनौती दी गई है।

इधर छात्रसंघ चुनाव को हरियाणा सरकार और कुरुक्षेत्र विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा की गई अनियमिताओं को लेकर पंजाब एंड हरियाणा हाइकोर्ट ने जवाब माँगा है आज मामले की माननीय जस्टिस राजन गुप्ता की कोर्ट में सुनवाई हुई। उच्च न्यायालय ने एडवोकेट अंशुल खुराना और एडवोकेट नीरज गोयल द्वारा फ़ाइल की गई #Petition पर सरकार और विश्विद्यालय से जवाब माँगा है।

वहीं छात्र  संघ चुनाव की प्रक्रिया पर सवाल उठाते हुए  एडवोकेट मानवेन्द्र सिंह चौहान ने कांग्रेस पार्टी के आरटीआई प्रकोष्ठ के अध्यक्ष के साथ मिलकर हाईकोर्ट में याचिका दायर की थी। जिस पर आज कोर्ट ने सरकार को नोटिस जारी किया व कहा कि चुनाव कोर्ट के अंतिम निर्णय पर आधारित रहेंगे

 

 

­LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

—                                The petitioners are research scholars of various departments of the Respondent No. 2 University as per the details below:

Petitioner No. 1: Department of Laws

Petitioner No. 2: Department of Botany

Petitioner No. 3: Department of Laws

Petitioner No. 4: Department of Laws

—                                The State of Haryana has started Student’s Union elections and the grievance of the petitioners are that in contravention of the Supreme Court’s guidelines the research scholars have been thrown out of the purview of the Student’s Councils. They are neither allowed to vote nor allowed to contest the elections.

—                                The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in University of Kerala versus Council, Principal’s Colleges and others directed setting up a high-power committee consisting of Sh. J.M. Lyngdoh, former Election Commission of India and other members to check and provide recommendations to the existing system of student’s elections in various Universities and Colleges of India to ensure participation of students in the democratic system to elect Students Councils. Thereafter, the Lyngdoh Committee submitted its recommendations to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through Ministry of HRD, India in May 2006. (Annexure P-1)

—                                Out of the recommendations the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accepted many of its recommendations and directed that the said recommendations be made mandatory for the conduct of Student’s Council elections all around India.(Annexure P-2)

—                                State of Haryana stopped Students body elections in the State in the year 1996 following the violence in the elections and after elections during the period between 1990 to 1996.

—                                Thereafter, following repeated representations of the Students Bodies; the State of Haryana agreed conduct of the elections as per the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations and thereafter formed a committee including the worthy Vice Chanceller of the Guru Jambeshwar University Hisar Prof. Tankeshwar Kumar. The committee is popularly known as Tankeshwar Committee. (Annexure P-3) It is respectfully submitted that the report was not made public and was not accessible to the students and general public before 09.10.2018/10.10.2018 when the said report was made public.

09.10.2018                Following the report; the State of Haryana directed the Universities to conduct the Student’s Council elections in the State of Haryana on 17.10.2018. A copy of the letter dated 09.10.2018 is attached herewith as Annexure P-4.

10.10.2018                Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 University put notice on the notice board for conduct of elections. The said notice was displayed on 10.10.2018 and the first and last date of nomination was 12.10.2018. The petitioners represented university for their cause but the same was not listened and given value to. (Annexure P-5)

—                                The petitioners are research scholars and they are aggrieved because they have been excluded from the election process completely. They can neither contest elections nor they can caste vote despite after the fact that they Lyngdoh Committee recommendations allowed the petitioners both. No opportunity of hearing was given to the research scholars, nor any reason has been given as to why the recommendations given in the Lyngdoh Committee which are duly accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and made mandatory in nature have been deviated.

—                                The petitioners want to contest the elections for the post of Class Representatives in order to participate in the democratic set up of Student’s Councils which happens to be the fundamental right of the petitioners as they stand included as per the Committee appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India however, excluded by the Committee appointed by the Respondent State. Such arbitrary exclusion is illegal, unjust and is against the legal principles. In case, the deviation was to be done by the Respondent State, then leave of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was required.

—                                The Student’s Council election process was started only on 09.10.2018 late evening and the same has been concluded on 17.10.2018 i.e. within a period of 8 days and none of the students have been given any fair chance of objecting to the report which has been made public for the first time and all research scholars have been excluded at the one go.

—                                As per the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations which are mandatory in nature; following can contest the elections:

6.5                   Eligibility Criteria for Candidates

6.5.1   Under graduate students between the ages of 17 and 22 may contest elections. This age range may be appropriately relaxed in the case of professional colleges, where courses often range between 4 to 5 years.

6.5.2   For Post Graduate Students the maximum age limit to legitimately contest and election would be 24 – 25 years.

6.5.3   For research Students the maximum age limit to legitimately contest an election would be 28 years.

—                                However, the Tankeshwar Committee recommendations have excluded the research scholars from the purview of elections completely and have included the Graduate students and Post Graduate students up to the age of 25 without even taking the leave of the Court. Thus, the entire process is illegal being violative of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

—                                The impugned action/inaction of the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners should be allowed contest as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Thus, the Impugned Report Annexure P-3 and subsequent letter Annexure P-4 are illegal, arbitrary in-so-far as they violate Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s directions in University of Kerala’s matter.

 

15.10.2018                Hence, the present writ petition.

 

CHANDIGARH                                                  (RAVINDER SINGH DHULL)

DATED: 15.10.2018                                                                 Advocate

Counsel for the Petitioner

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

 

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No._________ of 2018

  1. Anita daughter of Nasib Singh, Aged 27 years, Resident of VPO Jatai, District Bhiwani

2..        Anish son of Dharamvir, Aged 23 years, Resident of VPO Durjanpur, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind

  1. Minakshi Sharma daughter of Ashwani Kumar, Aged 25 Years, Resident of Village and Post Office Gatauli, District Jind
  2. Nisha daughter of Karambir, Aged 25 years, Resident of Village and Post Office Dumarkha Khurd, District Jind

–Petitioners

Versus

  1. State of Haryana through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh
  2. Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak through its Registrar

–Respondents

 

 

CHANDIGARH                                                  (RAVINDER SINGH DHULL)

DATED: 15.10.2018                                                                 Advocate

Counsel for the Petitioners

 

Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Tankeshwar Committee report (Annexure P-3) which doesn’t allow the Research Scholars to contest the Student’s Council elections in contravention of the Supreme Court of India Guidelines and Lyndoh Committee Report (Annexure P-1 and P-2); further a writ in the nature of Certiorari be issued quashing the impugned letter dated 09.10.2018(Annexure P-4) with which the Student’s Council’s elections have been scheduled for 17.10.2018 even without considering any representations or giving time to seek any objections to the report Annexure P-3; further a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the Respondent State to include the petitioners in the election process and allow them to vote as well as allow them to contest in the ongoing elections on 17.10.2018;

 

And/Or

To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble High Court may deems fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case;

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

  1. That the petitioners are permanent residents of State of Haryana and Citizen of India, hence are entitled to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
  2. That the petitioners are research scholars of various departments of the Respondent No. 2 University as per the details below:

Petitioner No. 1: Department of Laws

Petitioner No. 2: Department of Botany

Petitioner No. 3: Department of Laws

Petitioner No. 4: Department of Laws

  1. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in University of Kerala versus Council, Principal’s Colleges and others directed setting up a high-power committee consisting of Sh. J.M. Lyngdoh, former Election Commission of India and other members to check and provide recommendations to the existing system of student’s elections in various Universities and Colleges of India to ensure participation of students in the democratic system to elect Students Councils. Thereafter, the Lyngdoh Committee submitted its recommendations to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through Ministry of HRD, India in May 2006. A copy of the recommendations submitted to the Ministry on dated 23.05.2006 is attached herewith as Annexure P-1.
  2. That out of the recommendations the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accepted many of its recommendations and directed that the said recommendations be made mandatory for the conduct of Student’s Council elections all around India. A copy of the recommendations accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which are mandatory in nature are attached herewith as Annexure P-2.
  3. That State of Haryana stopped Students body elections in the State in the year 1996 following the violence in the elections and after elections during the period between 1990 to 1996.
  4. That thereafter, following repeated representations of the Students Bodies; the State of Haryana agreed conduct of the elections as per the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations and thereafter formed a committee including the worthy Vice Chanceller of the Guru Jambeshwar University Hisar Prof. Tankeshwar Kumar. The committee is popularly known as Tankeshwar Committee. The high-power Committee submitted its report to the Government of Haryana. Copy of the report submitted to the Government of Haryana is attached herewith as Annexure P-3. It is respectfully submitted that the report was not made public and was not accessible to the students and general public before 09.10.2018/10.10.2018 when the said report was made public.
  5. That following the report; the State of Haryana directed the Universities to conduct the Student’s Council elections in the State of Haryana on 17.10.2018. A copy of the letter dated 09.10.2018 is attached herewith as Annexure P-4.
  6. That thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 University put notice on the notice board for conduct of elections. The said notice was displayed on 10.10.2018 and the first and last date of nomination was 12.10.2018. The petitioners represented university for their cause but the same was not listened and given value to. Copy of election notice is attached herewith as Annexure P-5.
  7. That the petitioners are research scholars and they are aggrieved because they have been excluded from the election process completely. They can neither contest elections nor they can caste vote despite after the fact that they Lyngdoh Committee recommendations allowed the petitioners both. No opportunity of hearing was given to the research scholars, nor any reason has been given as to why the recommendations given in the Lyngdoh Committee which are duly accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and made mandatory in nature have been deviated.
  8. That the petitioners want to contest the elections for the post of Class Representatives in order to participate in the democratic set up of Student’s Councils which happens to be the fundamental right of the petitioners as they stand included as per the Committee appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India however, excluded by the Committee appointed by the Respondent State. Such arbitrary exclusion is illegal, unjust and is against the legal principles. In case, the deviation was to be done by the Respondent State, then leave of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was required.
  9. That the Student’s Council election process was started only on 09.10.2018 late evening and the same has been concluded on 17.10.2018 i.e. within a period of 8 days and none of the students have been given any fair chance of objecting to the report which has been made public for the first time and all research scholars have been excluded at the one go.
  10. That as per the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations which are mandatory in nature; following can contest the elections:

6.5                   Eligibility Criteria for Candidates

6.5.1   Under graduate students between the ages of 17 and 22 may contest elections. This age range may be appropriately relaxed in the case of professional colleges, where courses often range between 4 to 5 years.

6.5.2   For Post Graduate Students the maximum age limit to legitimately contest and election would be 24 – 25 years.

6.5.3   For research Students the maximum age limit to legitimately contest an election would be 28 years.

  1. That however, the Tankeshwar Committee recommendations have excluded the research scholars from the purview of elections completely and have included the Graduate students and Post Graduate students up to the age of 25 without even taking the leave of the Court. Thus, the entire process is illegal being violative of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
  2. That the impugned action/inaction of the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners should be allowed contest as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Thus, the Impugned Report Annexure P-3 and subsequent letter Annexure P-4 are illegal, arbitrary in-so-far as they violate Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s directions in University of Kerala’s matter.
  3. That the substantial questions of law involved in this writ petition are as under:-
  4. a) Whether the petitioner’s rights under Article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated?
  5. b) Whether the recommendations of Tankeshwar Committee can violate the accepted recommendations of Lyngdoh Committee?
  6. c) Whether the research scholars should be allowed to contest the Student’s Councils elections in Haryana?
  7. d) Whether grave and manifest injustice has been done with the petitioners?

 

  1. That there is no other alternative remedy of appeal or revision available with the petitioners except to approach this Hon’ble High Court under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India.

 

  1. That the petitioners have not filed any such or similarly writ petition either in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

It is, therefore, respectfully, prayed that:-

(i)       The records of the case may be called for;

(ii)        filing   of the certified copies   of   the annexures be dispensed with;

(iii)       advance   notice  upon  the  respondents    be dispensed with;

(iv)       an appropriate writ, order or direction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India may kindly be issued in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Tankeshwar Committee report (Annexure P-3) which doesn’t allow the Research Scholars to contest the Student’s Council elections in contravention of the Supreme Court of India Guidelines and Lyndoh Committee Report (Annexure P-1 and P-2); further a writ in the nature of Certiorari be issued quashing the impugned letter dated 09.10.2018(Annexure P-4) with which the Student’s Council’s elections have been scheduled for 17.10.2018 even without considering any representations or giving time to seek any objections to the report Annexure P-3; further a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the Respondent State to include the petitioners in the election process and allow them to vote as well as allow them to contest in the ongoing elections on 17.10.2018;

(v)        this  Hon’ble  High Court may  also  pass  any other  order,  writ or  direction  which  this Hon’ble High Court may deems fit and proper  in the  peculiar facts and circumstances  of  the case;

(vii)      costs of the writ Petition be also  awarded to the petitioner.

INTERIM PRAYER

It is respectfully submitted that during the pendency of the present petition; the election process of Student’s Councils in the State of Haryana which is scheduled to be held on 17.10.2018 may be stayed; in the interest of justice.

 

 

(1) ANITA                  (2) ANISH                              (3) MINAKSHI SHARMA               

 

(4) NISHA)

 

           

           

PLACE : CHANDIGARH                           

DATED : 15.10.2018                                                                  Petitioner

                                           Through Counsel

                                      (RAVINDER SINGH DHULL) Advocate

                                             Counsel for the Petitioner

VERIFICATION:

Verified that the statement of facts contains Para 1 to 14 and Para 16 & 17 are true and correct to my knowledge, whereas legal averments are made in Para 15 on the advise of the counsel and same to be believed is correct.  No part thereof is false and nothing material has been kept concealed therein.

 

(1) ANITA                  (2) ANISH                              (3) MINAKSHI SHARMA               

 

(4) NISHA)

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.________OF 2018

 

Anita and others                                                                                Petitioners

 

Versus

 

State of Haryana and another                                                       Respondents

 

Affidavit of Anita daughter of Nasib Singh, Aged 27 years, Resident of VPO Jatai, District Bhiwani

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

  1. That the writ petition has been prepared as per the instructions given by the deponent and in his presence. The deponent found that the contents in para no. 1 to 14 & 16 and 17 of the petition are true and correct to the best  of  his knowledge. The legal submissions made in para no. 15 are made on the advise of the counsel and are believed to be true.
  2. That the petitioner is competent to file the present writ petition as the petitioner is permanent resident of State of Haryana and is Citizen of India.

PLACE: CHANDIGARH

DATED: 15.10.2018                                                                           Deponent


VERIFICATION:

Verified that the contents of my writ petition are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing has been concealed therein.

PLACE: CHANDIGARH

DATED: 15.10.2018                                                            Deponent

 

ANNEXURE P-1

The recommendation of the Committee accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for implementation:

6.1.1            Universities and colleges across the country must ordinarily conduct elections for the appointment of students to student representative bodies. These elections may be conducted in the manner prescribed herein, or in a manner that conforms to the standards prescribed herein.

6.1.2            Where the atmosphere of the university campus is adverse to the conduct of peaceful, free and fair elections, the university, its constituent colleges and departments must initiate a system of student representation based on nominations, especially where elections are being held at present. It would be advisable, however, not to base such nomination system on purely academic merit, as is being practiced throughout the country.

6.1.3            In cases where elections are not being held, or where the nomination model prevails, the nomination model should be allowed to continue for a limited period of time. It is to be noted that the nomination system suffers from several flaws, and must only be resorted to as an INTERIM MEASURE.

6.1.4            Subject to the recommendations in respect of the possible models of elections, all institutions must, over a period of 5 years, convert from the nomination model to a structured election model, that may be based on a system of parliamentary (indirect) elections, or on the presidential (direct) system, or a hybrid of both. It is highly desirable that all institutions follow this mechanism of gradual conversion, especially for privately funded institutions that prefer a status quo situation.

6.1.5            All institutions must conduct a review of the student representation mechanism. The first review may be conducted after a period of 2 years of the implementation of the mechanism detailed above, and the second review may be conducted after the 3rd or the 4th year of implementation. The primary objective of these reviews will be to ascertain the success of the representation and election mechanism in each individual institution, so as to decide whether or not to implement a full-fledged election structure. Needless to say these reviews will be based on a consideration of the views and suggestions of all stakeholders, such as students, faculty, administration, student bodies, and parents.

6.1.6            Institutions must, as a primary objective, subject to the pertinent issue of discipline on campus, seek to implement a structured system of student elections by the conclusion of a period of 5 years from the date of the implementation of these recommendations.

6.1.7            Subject to the autonomy of the universities in respect of the choice of the mode of election, all universities must institute an apex student representative body that represents all students, colleges, and departments coming under the particular university. In the event that the university is geographically widespread, individual colleges may constitute their own representative bodies, which would further elect representatives for the apex university body.

6.1.8            The union/representative body so elected shall only comprise of regular students on the rolls of the institution. No faculty member, nor any member of the administration shall be permitted to hold any post on the executive of such representative body, nor shall be allowed to be a member of any such representative body.

6.2               Modes of Elections

6.2.1            A system of direct election of the office bearers of the student body whereby all students of all constituent colleges, as well as all students of the university departments vote directly for the office bearers. This model may be followed in smaller universities with well-defined single campuses (for e.g. JNU/University of Hyderabad), and with a relatively smaller student population. A graphic representation of this model is annexed herewith at Annexure IV-A. In respect of universities with large, widespread campuses and large student bodies, either of the following models may be adopted:

6.2.2            A system of elections, where colleges and campuses directly elect college and campus office bearers, as well as university representatives. The university representatives form an electoral college, which shall elect the university student union office bearers. A graphic representation of this model is annexed herewith at Annexure IV-B.

6.2.3            A system of elections where on one hand, directly elected class representatives elect the office bearers of the college as well as the university representatives, and the campus itself directly elects the campus office bearers and the university representatives. The university representatives shall form an electoral college, which shall elect the office bearer of the university student union. A graphic representation of this model is annexed herewith at Annexure IV-C. 6.2.4 A system of election wherein class representatives shall be directly elected in the colleges and universities campus and they in turn shall elect the office bearers for the college unions and the university campus union. Also they shall elect their representatives for university student union. These elected representatives from colleges and university campus shall form the Electoral College, which shall elect the office bearers of the university student union. This model shall be applicable to large university with large number of affiliated colleges. A graphic representation of this model is annexed herewith at Annexure IV-D.

6.3               Disassociation of Student Elections and Student Representation from Political Parties

6.3.1            During the period of the elections no person, who is not a student on the rolls of the college/university, shall be permitted to take part in the election process in any capacity. Any person, candidate, or member of the student organisation, violating this rule shall be subject to disciplinary proceedings, in addition to the candidature, as the case may be, being revoked.

6.4               Frequency and Duration of the Election Process

6.4.1            It is recommended that the entire process of elections, commencing from the date of filing of nomination papers to the date of declaration of results, including the campaign period, should not exceed 10 days.

6.4.2            It is further recommended that elections be held on a yearly basis and that the same should be held between 6 to 8 weeks from the date of commencement of the academic session.

6.5               Eligibility Criteria for Candidates

6.5.1            Under graduate students between the ages of 17 and 22 may contest elections. This age range may be appropriately relaxed in the case of professional colleges, where courses often range between 4 to 5 years.

6.5.2            For Post Graduate Students the maximum age limit to legitimately contest and election would be 24 – 25 years.

6.5.3            For research Students the maximum age limit to legitimately contest an election would be 28 years.

6.5.4            Although, the Committee would refrain from prescribing any particular minimum marks to be attained by the candidate, the candidate should in no event have any academic arrears in the year of contesting the election.

6.5.5            The candidate should have attained the minimum percentage of attendance as prescribed by the university or 75% attendance, whichever is higher.

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.

6.5.7            The candidate shall not have a previous criminal record, that is to say he should not have been tried and/or convicted of any criminal offence or misdemeanor. The candidate shall also not have been subject to any disciplinary action by the University authorities. 6.5.8 The candidate must be a regular, full time student of the college / university and should not be a distance/proximate education student. That is to say that all eligible candidates must be enrolled in a full time course, the course duration being at least one year.

6.6               Election – Related Expenditure and Financial Accountability

6.6.1            The maximum permitted expenditure per candidate shall be Rs. 5000/-

6.6.2            Each candidate shall, within two weeks of the declaration of the result, submit complete and audited accounts to the college / university authorities. The college/university shall publish such audited accounts, within 2 days of the submission of such accounts, through a suitable medium so that any member of the student body may freely examine the same.

6.6.3            The election of the candidate will be nullified in the event of any noncompliance or in the event of any excessive expenditure.

6.6.4            With the view to prevent the inflow of funds from political parties into the student election process, the candidates are specially barred from utilizing funds from any other sources than voluntary contributions from the student body.

6.7               Code of Conduct for Candidates and Elections Administrators

6.7.1            No candidate shall indulge in, nor shall abet, any activity, which may aggravate existing differences or create mutual hatred or cause tension between different castes and communities, religious or linguistic, or between any group(s) of students.

6.7.2            Criticism of other candidates, when made, shall be confined to their policies and programs, past record and work. Candidates shall refrain from criticism of all aspects of private life, not connected with the public activities of the other candidates or supporters of such other candidates. Criticism of other candidates, or their supporters based on unverified allegations or distortion shall be avoided.

6.7.3            There shall be no appeal to caste or communal feelings for securing votes. Places of worship, within or without the campus shall not be used for election propaganda.

6.7.4            All candidates shall be prohibited from indulging or abetting, all activities which are considered to be “corrupt practices” and offences, such as bribing of voters, intimidation of voters, impersonation of voters, canvassing or the use of propaganda within 100 meters of polling stations, holding public meetings during the period of 24 hours ending with the hour fixed for the close of the poll, and the transport and conveyance of voters to and from polling station.

6.7.5            No candidate shall be permitted to make use of printed posters, printed pamphlets, or any other printed material for the purpose of canvassing. Candidates may only utilize hand-made posters for the purpose of canvassing, provided that such hand-made posters are procured within the expenditure limit set out herein above.

6.7.6            Candidates may only utilize hand-made posters at certain places in the campus, which shall be notified in advance by the election commission / university authority.

6.7.7            No candidate shall be permitted to carry out processions, or public meetings, or in any way canvass or distribute propaganda outside the university/college campus.

6.7.8            No candidate shall, nor shall his/her supporters, deface or cause any destruction to any property of the university / college campus, for any purpose whatsoever, without the prior written permission of the college / university authorities. All candidates shall be held jointly and severally liable for any destruction / defacing of any university / college property.

6.7.9            During the election period the candidates may hold processions and / or public meetings, provided that such processions and / or public meetings do not, in any manner, disturb the classes and other academic and co curricular activities of the college / university. Further, such procession / public meeting may not be held without the prior written permission of the college / university authority.

6.7.10          The use of loudspeakers, vehicles and animals for the purpose of canvassing shall be prohibited.

6.7.11          On the day of polling, student organizations and candidates shall -:

(i) co-operate with the officers on election duty to ensure peaceful and orderly polling and complete freedom to the voters to exercise their franchise without being subjected to any annoyance or obstruction;

(ii) not serve or distribute any eatables, or other solid and liquid consumables, except water on polling day; (iii) not hand out any propaganda on the polling day.

6.7.12          Excepting the voters, no one without a valid pass / letter of authority from the election commission or from the college / university authorities shall enter the polling booths.

6.7.13          The election commission / college/ university authorities shall appoint impartial observers. In the case of deemed universities and self-financed institutions, government servants may be appointed as observers. If the candidates have any specific complaint or problem regarding the conduct of the elections they may bring the same to the notice of the observer. Observers shall also be appointed to oversee the process of nomination of students in institutions that are following the nomination model of student representation.

6.7.14          All candidates shall be jointly responsible for ensuring the cleaning up of the polling area within 48 hours of the conclusion of polling.

6.7.15          Any contravention of any of the above recommendations may make the candidate liable to be stripped of his candidature, or his elected post, as the case may be. The election commission / college / university authorities may also take appropriate disciplinary action against such a violator.

6.7.16          In addition to the above-mentioned code of conduct, it is also recommended that certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 153A and Chapter IXA – “Offences Relating to Election”), may also be made applicable to student elections.

6.8               Grievance Redressal Mechanism

6.8.1            There should be a Grievances Redressal Cell with the Dean (Student Welfare) / teacher in charge of student affairs as its chairman. In addition, one senior faculty member, one senior administrative officer and two final year students – one boy and one girl (till the election results declared, students can be nominated on the basis of merit and/or participation in the co-curricular activities in the previous year). The grievance cell shall be mandated with the redressal of election-related grievances, including, but not limited to breaches of the code of conduct of elections and complaints relating to election related expenditure. This cell would be the regular unit of the institution.

6.8.2            In pursuit of its duties, the grievance cell may prosecute violators of any aspect of the code of conduct or the rulings of the grievance cell. The grievance cell shall serve as the court of original jurisdiction. The institutional head shall have appellate jurisdiction over issues of law and fact in all cases or controversies arising out of the conduct of the elections in which the grievance cell has issued a final decision. Upon review, the institutional head may revoke or modify the sanctions imposed by the grievance cell

6.8.3            In carrying out the duties of the office, the Grievance cell shall conduct proceedings and hearings necessary to fulfill those duties. In executing those duties they shall have the authority:

(i) to issue a writ of subpoena to compel candidates, agents, and workers, and to request students to appear and give testimony, as well as produce necessary records; and

(ii) to inspect the financial reports of any candidate and make these records available for public scrutiny upon request.

6.8.4            Members of the Grievance cell are prohibited from filing complaints. Any other student may file a complaint with the Grievance cell, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of declaration of results. All complaints must be filed under the name of the student filing the complaint. The Grievance cell shall act on all complaints within 24 hours after they are received by either dismissing them or calling a hearing.

6.8.5            The Grievance cell may dismiss a complaint if:

(i) the complaint was not filed within the time frame prescribed in Recommendation 8.4 above;

(ii) the complaint fails to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted;

(iii) the complainant has not and / or likely will not suffer injury or damage.

6.8.6            If a complaint is not dismissed, then a hearing must be held. The Grievance cell shall inform, in writing, or via e-mail, the complaining party and all individuals or groups named in the complaint of the time and place of the hearing. The parties are not considered notified until they have received a copy of the complaint.

6.8.7            The hearing shall be held at the earliest possible time, but not within twenty-four (24) hours after receipt of the notice described above, unless all parties agree to waive the 24-hour time constraint.

6.8.8            At the time notice of a hearing is issued, the Grievance cell, by majority vote, may issue a temporary restraining order, if it determines that such action is necessary to prevent undue or adverse effects on any individual or entity. Any restraining order, once issued, will remain in effect until a decision of the Grievance cell is announced after the hearing or until rescinded by the Grievance cell.

6.8.9            All Grievance cell hearings, proceedings, and meetings must be open to the public.

6.8.10          All Parties of the Grievance cell hearing shall present themselves at the hearing, may be accompanied by any other student from which they can receive counsel, and have the option to be represented by that counsel.

6.8.11          For any hearing, a majority of sitting Grievance cell members must be in attendance with the Chair of the Grievance cell presiding. In the absence of the Chair, the responsibility to preside shall fall to an Grievance cell member designated by the Chair.

6.8.12          The Grievance cell shall determine the format for the hearing, but must require that both the complaining and responding parties appear physically before the board to discuss the issues through a complaint, answered, rebuttal, and rejoinder format. The purpose of the hearing is to gather the information necessary to make a decision, order, or ruling that will resolve an election dispute. To effectuate this purpose, the following rules should prevail at all hearings:

• Complaining parties shall be allowed no more than two witnesses, however the Grievance cell may call witnesses as required. If said witnesses are unable to appear at the hearing, signed affidavits may be submitted the the Grievance cell Chair for the purpose of testifying by proxy.

• All questions and discussions by the parties in dispute shall be directed to the Grievance cell.

• There shall be no direct or cross-examination of any party or witness by complaining or responding parties during hearings.

• Reasonable time limits may be set by the Grievance cell, provided they give fair and equal treatment to both sides.

• The complaining party shall bear the burden of proof.

• Decisions, orders, and rulings of the Grievance cell must be concurred to by a majority of the Grievance cell present and shall be announced as soon as possible after the hearing. The Grievance cell shall issue a written opinion of the ruling within 12 hours of announcement of the decision. The written opinion must set forth the findings of fact by the Grievance cell and the conclusions of law in support of it. Written opinions shall set a precedent for a time period of three election cycles for Grievance cell rulings, and shall guide the Grievance cell in its proceedings. Upon consideration of prior written opinions, the grievance cell may negate the decision, but must provide written documentation of reasons for doing so.

• If the decision of the Grievance cell is appealed to the institutional head, the Grievance cell must immediately submit its ruling to the commission.

• The Grievance cell shall select the remedy or sanction most appropriate to both the type and severity of the infraction, as well as the state of mind or intent of the violator as determined by the Grievance cell. Possible remedies and sanctions include, but are not limited to, fines, suspension of campaigning privileges, and disqualification from the election.

• Any fine or total amount of fines against a candidate in an election cycle may not exceed the spending limit as defined herein above.

• If, after a hearing, the Grievance cell finds that provisions of this Code were violated by a candidate, or a candidate’s agents or workers, the Grievance cell may restrict the candidate, or the candidates agents or workers, from engaging in some or all campaign activities for some or all of the remainder of the campaign. If an order is issued covering only part of the remaining campaign period, it shall take effect immediately so that after its termination, the candidate will have an opportunity to resume campaigning during the days immediately prior to and including the election days.

• If, after a hearing, the Grievance cell finds that provisions of either this Code or decisions, opinions, orders, or rulings of the Grievance cell have been willfully and blatantly violated by a candidate, or a candidate’s agents or workers, the Grievance cell may disqualify the candidate.

• Any party adversely affected by a decision of the Grievance cell may file an appeal with the institutional head within twenty-four (24) hours after the adverse decision is announced. The institutional head shall have discretionary appellate jurisdiction over the Grievance cell in all cases in which error on the part of the Grievance cell is charged.

• The decision of the Grievance cell shall stand and shall have full effect until the appeal is heard and decided by the institutional head.

• The institutional head shall hear appeals of Grievance cell rulings as soon as possible, but not within twenty-four (24) hours after the Grievance cell delivers to the Appellant and the institutional head a copy of its written opinion in the case. Appeal may be heard prior to this time, but only if the Appellant waives the right to a written opinion and the institutional head agrees to accept the waiver.

• The institutional head can issue suitable orders to suspend or halt the operation of the ruling issued by the Grievance cell until the appeals are decided.

• The institutional head shall review findings of the Grievance cell when appealed. The institutional head may affirm or overturn the decision of the Grievance cell, or modify the sanctions imposed.

6.9               Maintaining Law and Order on the Campus during the Election Process

6.9.1            Any instance of acute lawlessness or the commission of a criminal offence shall be reported to the police by the university / college authorities as soon as possible, but not later than 12 hours after the alleged commission of the offence.

6.10 Miscellaneous Recommendations

6.10.1          Student representation is essential to the overall development of students, and, therefore, it is recommended that university statutes should expressly provide for student representation.

6.10.2          Student representation should be regulated by statute (either a Central Statue, State Statute or individual university statutes), incorporating the recommendations prescribed herein.

6.10.3          The institution should organize leadership-training programs with the help of professional organizations so as to groom and instill in students leadership qualities.

6.10.4          In the event of the office of any major post of office bearer falling vacant within two months of elections, re-elections should be conducted; otherwise the Vice President may be promoted to the post of President and Joint Secretary to the post of Secretary, as the case may be.

True Copy

Advocate

 

ANNEXURE P-2

 

              REPORT

Report of the Committee consisting of the following regarding Students election in Universities and Colleges in the State of Haryana.

Members:

1.Prof. Tankeshwar Kumar, Vice- Chancellor GJUST, Hisar

2.Prof. K.C. Sharma, Vice –Chancellor, Kurukshetra University, Kurukeshtra

  1. Prof. B.K. Punia, Vice- Chancellor, M.D.U. Rohtak
  2. Dr. Madan Lal, Registrar, IGU Rewari

Following observations/Recommendations are made:

  1. The committee has gone through Lyngdoh Committee’s report and constitutions of students ’council of other universities including Panjab University and Delhi University. The committee observed that the neighboring States like Punjab and Uttar Pradesh are not holding any students’ elections.
  2. The committee has gone through the representation from various quarters and kept sentiment of general public as well as reasons for stopping the elections in the state about 22 years back. It is known that many casualties took place during elections of students.
  3. The committee is of the view that students’ participation in academic-administration is important.
  4. The committee also observed that Universities need to incorporate recommendation of the Committee/Government through its Executive Councils.
  5. No elections should be held without clearance from the police and district deputy commissioner, for maintaining Law and order in the State.
  6. Following recommendations of Lyngdoh Committee, the committee recommends introduction of elections in Universities and colleges in phase manner. It could take two-three years to evolve the system of elections to the full satisfaction of the students and administration.
  7. Teachers and non-teacher employees should not involve directly or indirectly into student’s elections resulting in favouring or disfavouring any candidate.

The committee proposes followings for the students’ union election in Universities and affiliated Colleges which were opened in or before the academic session 2016-17:

  1. Disassociation of Student Elections and Student Representation from Political Parties.

During the period of the elections no person, who is not a student on the rolls of the college/university, shall be permitted to take part in the election process in any capacity.  Any person, candidate, or member of the student organization, or a member of a registered Political party, violating this rule shall be subject to disciplinary proceedings, in addition to the candidature, as the case may be, being revoked.

  1. Eligibility Criteria for Candidates
  2. Under graduate students between the ages of 17 and 22 may contest elections. This age range may be appropriately relaxed by one year in the case of professional courses, where courses often range between 4 to 5 years.
  3. For Post Graduate Students the maximum age limit to legitimately contest an election would be 25 years.
  4. The candidate should have scored atleast passing marks in all papers of previous year for last result declared.
  5. The candidate should in no event have any academic arrears in the year of contesting the election.
  6. Candidates with gap year(s) be not allowed to participate.
  7. The candidate should have attained the minimum percentage of attendance as prescribed by the university or 75% attendance, whichever is higher in its previous year or in the same year of the election for the students of first year in the campus.
  8. 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.
  9. The candidate shall not have a previous criminal record, that is to say he should not   have been tried and/or convicted of any criminal offence or misdemeanour. The candidate shall also not have been subject to any disciplinary action by the University authorities.
  10. The candidate must be a regular, full time student of the university and should not be a distance/proximate education student.  That is to say that all eligible candidates must be enrolled in a full time course, the course duration being at least one year.

Note: For this purpose, ‘student’ would mean a whole-time student in any teaching department including M.Phil., LL.M., M.Pharm., M.Tech. and the like but shall not include research students of Ph. D, doing short term courses and diplomas and in-service Teachers doing M.Phil./Ph.D or a student who as per the record of the department is an employee of Government or Semi Government Organization, Public or Private Sectors undertaking.

  • Election Related Expenditure and Financial Accountability:
    1. The maximum permitted expenditure per candidate shall be Rs. 5000/-
    2. Each candidate shall, within two weeks of the declaration of the result, submit complete and certified accounts (to be certified by the candidate) to the university authorities. The university shall publish such certified accounts within 2 days of submission of such accounts, through a suitable medium so that any member of the student body may freely examine the same.
    3. The election of the candidate will be nullified in the event of any noncompliance or in the event of any excessive expenditure.
    4. With the view to prevent the inflow of funds from political parties into the student election process, the candidates are specially barred from utilizing funds from any sources other than voluntary contributions but within maximum limit of Rs. 5000/.
  1. Code of Conduct for Candidates and Elections Administrators:
    1. No candidate shall indulge in, nor shall abet, any activity, which may aggravate existing differences or create mutual hatred or cause tension between different castes and communities, religions or linguistic, or between any group(s) of students.
    2. Criticism of other candidates, when made, shall be confined to their policies and programs, past record and work. Candidates shall refrain from criticism of all aspects of private life, not connected with the public activities of the other candidates or supporters of such other candidates.  Criticism of other candidates, or their supporters based on unverified allegations or distortion shall be avoided.
    3. There shall be no appeal to caste or communal feelings for securing votes. Places of worship, within or outside the campus shall not be used for election propaganda. No political face can be used for canvassing purpose or other purpose during the election.
    4. All candidates shall be prohibited from indulging or abetting in activities which are considered to be “corrupt practices” and offences, such as bribing of voters, intimidation of voters, impersonation of voters, canvassing or the use of propaganda beyond prescribed limit, and holding public meetings.
    5. No candidate will be allowed transport and conveyance with or without their banner on it for the purpose of canvassing and for bringing of voters  to and from.
    6. No candidate shall be permitted to make use of printed posters, printed pamphlets or any other printed material for the purpose of canvassing. Candidates may only utilize hand-made posters for the purpose of canvassing, provided that such hand-made posters are procured within the expenditure limit set out herein above.
    7. Candidates may only utilize hand-made posters at certain places in the campus, which shall be notified in advance by the election commission/ university authority.
    8. No candidate will utilize name of any district, state or national level students’ organizations/Union/Parishad on the poster or on banner or on the anything which could identify him or her as a candidate of that organization.
    9. No candidate shall be permitted to carry out processions, or public meetings, or in any way canvass or distribute propaganda outside the university campus/college campus.
    10. No candidate shall, nor shall his/her supporters, deface or cause any destruction of any property of the university/college campus, for any purpose whatsoever, without the prior written permission of the college/university authorities. All candidates shall be held jointly and severally liable for any destruction/defacing of any university/college property.
    11. During the election period the candidates may hold one procession and/or public meeting, provided that such procession and/or public meeting do not, in any manner, disturb the classes and other academic and co-curricular activities of the college/university. Further, such procession/public meeting may not be held without the prior written permission of the authority.
    12. The use of loudspeakers, vehicles and animals for the purpose of canvassing shall be prohibited.
    13. On the day of polling, student organizations and candidates shall:
  2. co-operate with the officers on election duty to ensure peaceful and orderly polling and complete freedom to the voters to exercise their franchise without being subjected to any annoyance or obstruction;
  3. not serve or distribute any eatables, or other solid and liquid consumables, except water on polling day;
  4. not hand out any propaganda on the polling day.
  5. Excepting the voters, no one without a valid pass/letters of the authority from the election commission or from the college/university authorities shall enter the polling booths.
  6. The election commission/college/university authorities shall appoint impartial observers. In the case of deemed universities and self-financed institutions, government servants may be appointed as observers. If the candidates have any specific complaint or problem regarding the conduct of the elections they may bring the same to the notice of the observer. Observers shall also be appointed to oversee the process of nomination of students in institutions that are following the nomination model of student representation.
  7. All candidates shall be jointly responsible for ensuring the cleaning up of the polling area within 48 hours of the conclusion of polling.
  8. Any contravention of any of the above recommendations may make the candidate liable to be stripped of his candidature or his elected post, as the case may be. The election commission/ college/ university authorities may also take appropriate disciplinary action against such a violator.
  9. In addition to the above-mentioned code of conduct, it is also recommended that certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 153-A and Chapter IX-A “Offences Relating to Elections”), may also be made applicable to student elections.
  10. Maintaining Law and Order on the Campus during the Election Process:

Any instance of acute lawlessness or the commission of a criminal offence shall be reported to the police by the university/college authorities as soon as possible, but not later than 6 hours after the alleged commission of the offence. Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police will be responsible for maintenance of law and order in the campus.

  1. Council:
  2. 1. Functions
    • To promote healthy corporate life on the Campus.
    • To ensure maintenance of proper academic atmosphere and orderliness on

the University Campus.

  • To assist in organizing various cultural and sports functions

 

  1. 2. Name : The organization(s) shall be called “Name of  University/College: CAMPUS GENERAL STUDENTS’  COUNCIL” and Name of University/college : CAMPUS EXECUTIVE STUDENTS’  COUNCIL
  2. 3. Membership :
  1. Enrolment of students in departments/class shall be as on 31st August or the date to be approved by the Vice-Chancellor prior to the election date.
  2. The General Students Council shall consist of Four Office Bearers (President, Vice-President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, five executive members, all class representatives and five nominated members.
  3. Nomination of the five members can be made by head of institution from the best sport person(s), NSS worker, NCC, Cultural performer or any other outstanding performer.
  4. The election of the office bearers and five executive members shall be held simultaneously on a date to be fixed by the Dean Student Welfare with the consent of Vice-Chancellor and local Police.
  5. Office bearers and five executive members shall be elected by the Class representatives on the same date of election/Nomination of class representatives. The office bearers and the executive members should be amongst the CR’s. The exact date of the election shall be fixed by the Dean Student Welfare/Principal. As far as possible, all these elections would ordinarily be completed by the middle of September.
  6. In case no nomination papers from a department are received for CR or all the nomination papers received are rejected, the student with maximum marks/rank in its previously declared result for ongoing students or with top rank in the process of admission for first year student may be recommended by head of department to Dean Student Welfare as Class Representative.
  7. In case no nomination papers from CR’s are received for any Office bearer(s) or all the nomination papers received are rejected, the CRs may elect among themselves the office bearer following the procedure laid for executive members for which returning officer will seek nominations and elections will be held along with the executive council.
  8. There will be 01 CR from each class.
  9. The term of the Students’ Council is from the date of election to the 30th of April.
  10. The Executive Students Council: The Executive Students Council shall consist of four office bearers and five members elected by the Class Representatives from among themselves. The Executive Committee shall be responsible to the General Council

The Executive Committee shall consist of:

  1. One President
  2. One Vice-President
  3. One Secretary
  4. One Joint Secretary
  5. Five other members
  6. One SC representative by way of nomination by DSW/ College Principal or by draw of amongst (a) to (e) and this is to be notified before the election process.
  7. For co-ed institutions one post amongst (a) to (d) be reserved for girl student representative. This be done by way of draw of lottery every year before calling nomination and this is to be notified before the election process.
    1. Roles of Office Bearers
  8. President

The President of the University Students’ Council shall be responsible to the students.

  1. Vice-President

He will perform all the duties of the President in the latter’s absence.  He will automatically become Officiating President if the President resigns or is unable to discharge his duties for the rest of the term.

  1. Secretary

The Secretary of the University Students’ Council will be responsible for

executing decisions of Council.

  1. Joint Secretary:

He will perform all the duties of the Secretary in the latter’s absence.  He will automatically become the Officiating Secretary if the Secretary resigns or is unable to discharge his duties for the rest of the term.

  1. Assignments of Executive members: The head of the institution before announcing general elections may assign different faculties to five vacancies of executive member so that representation made to council is uniformly distributed over different subjects. The faculties are to be defined by DSW prior to the elections
  2. 7. Term of Office for Office Bearers:

The Office Bearers shall cease to hold office if:

  1. He/she resigns by addressing his resignation to the Dean Student Welfare/Principal. He shall cease to hold office from the date his resignation is accepted by the Dean Student Welfare/Principal.
  2. He/she ceases to be a student of the University on account of non-payment of fee or any other reason.
  3. He/she is held to be guilty of gross misconduct by the University.
  4. He/she ceases to be a student.

VII. Election bye-laws of the State Universities / Colleges Campus Students’ Council:

  1. Election to the Students’ Council in various departments/ colleges will be held generally in the month of September on a date and time as may be fixed by the Dean Student Welfare and to be notified to the affiliated colleges. He may, if contingencies so warrant, alter the date/ schedule of the election.
  2. The entire process of elections, commencing from the date of filing of nomination papers to the date of declaration of results, including the campaign period, shall not exceed 3 days.
  3. The Dean Student Welfare shall notify the date of election to each department/ college for the information of the students at least three days before the date fixed for the election.
  4. (a) The Head of the Department// College Principal shall be the Returning Officer for the election of Class Representatives. However, he shall have the authority to appoint one or more members of his teaching staff as Polling Officer(s).

(b) The Dean Student Welfare/ College Principal shall be the Returning Officer for the election of the Executive Committee.  He shall have the authority to appoint one or more Polling Officer(s) to assist him in the conduct of election.

  1. The election shall be by simple majority vote.

VIII.      Election of Class Representatives:

  1. The Head of the Department/ College Principal shall by affixing a notice on the Notice Board of the Department at least 2 days before the date of election, invite nominations for the election of Class Representative(s), and office bearers along with the consent and declaration of each candidate on the prescribed form, so as to reach him by the time fixed by the Dean Student Welfare// College Principal at least one day before the date of election.

Immediately after the closing time for the receipt of nominations, the Head of the Department/ College Principal shall notify the list of persons whose nomination papers have been received by him by affixing it on the Notice Board of his Department/ College Principal.

  1. Thereafter, objection(s), if any, regarding the eligibility of candidate(s) shall be made, in writing, to the Head of the Department/ College Principal within the time limit notified by the Dean Student Welfare for the purpose.
  2. The scrutiny of nomination papers will start on the date and time fixed by the Dean Student Welfare / College Principal for the purpose. Any objection(s) duly received by the Head of Department/ College Principal shall be disposed of during scrutiny.  The candidate(s) must produce original documents (Degree/Diploma/Matriculation or Higher Secondary Certificate/and other relevant papers required in relation to eligibility) at the time of scrutiny.  Nomination papers not supported by original documents shall be treated as invalid.  The decision of the Returning Officer shall be final.
  3. Each Head of the Department/ College Principal shall, after personal verification and scrutiny of original degree/diploma/other documents, certify on prescribed form about the eligibility of the candidate(s). Immediately after the scrutiny, a list of the names of candidates whose nomination papers have been found valid shall be notified by the Head of the Department / College Principal by affixing it on the Notice Board of the department.
  4. A candidate may withdraw his name from the contest by personally delivering the prescribed form of withdrawal duly filled in and signed, so as to reach the Returning Officer by the date and time fixed by the Dean Student Welfare/ College Principal. The Returning Officer shall, immediately thereafter, notify the withdrawals if any.
  5. The election in each department / colleges shall take place on the date and time fixed by the Dean Student Welfare. If there is a tie among the candidates for the election of Class Representative(s), or office bearers the matter shall be decided by the draw of lots by the Returning Officer.
  6. In all the departments, the election of Class Representative(s) shall be direct.
  7. The results of the election of the Class Representatives shall be communicated on the prescribed form by all the Heads of the Departments/ College Principal to the Dean Student Welfare by the date and time fixed by the Dean Student Welfare.
  8. Immediately after the election the class representative be taken to DSW / College Principal office/ venue of voting for office bearers/executive members by the head of department’s representatives under protection.
  9. Election of the office bearers and Executive Committee of the Students’ Council
  1. No voter (Class representatives) shall be allowed to leave the Voting Hall after he/she has been handed over to DSW/ College Principal as class representative.
  2. The Dean Student Welfare/ College Principal shall notify by affixing a notice on the Notice Board of his office the date and time for the receipt of nomination papers. The date of the election of office bearers be the same as the date of election of Class representatives.

Immediately after the election of all class representatives on the aforesaid date, the Dean Student Welfare/ College Principal shall seek nomination papers for various offices of the office bearers and Executive Committee. Dean Student Welfare/ College Principal will notify the nominations which have been duly received by him by affixing a notice on the Notice Board of his office/venue of election. .

  1. Objection(s), if any, against the candidature(s) of a person(s), but not pertaining to the eligibility conditions, shall be made, in writing, by the Class Representative(s) to the Dean Student Welfare/ College Principal on the timing fixed for the receipt of nomination papers and by the time as may be notified by the Dean Student Welfare/ College Principal. These objections will be disposed of by the Dean Student Welfare/ College Principal at the time of scrutiny.
  2. The scrutiny of the nomination papers will start at the time fixed for the purpose by the Dean Student Welfare/ College Principal, on time notified by the Dean Student Welfare/ College Principal.
  3. Immediately after the scrutiny, the list of the names of persons whose nomination papers have been found valid, shall be notified by the Dean Student Welfare/ College Principal by affixing a notice on the Notice Board of his office/Venue of election.
  4. A candidate may withdraw his name from the contest by personally delivering the prescribed form of withdrawal duly filled in and signed, so as to reach the Returning Officer by the time fixed by the Dean Student Welfare/ College Principal. The Returning Officer shall, immediately thereafter, notify the withdrawals, if any.
  5. Election to the Office bearers (if any) and Executive Committee shall be held on the date and time fixed by the Dean Student Welfare.
  6. Objection(s), if any, regarding the conduct of elections to the Executive Committee will be disposed of by the Returning Officer on the spot.
  7. The counting of votes will start immediately after the voters have cast their votes.
  8. The Returning Officer shall thereafter announce the results. If there is a tie among the candidates for the election of office bearers or member(s) of the Executive Committee, the matter shall be decided by draw of lots by the Returning Officer.
  9. Law and Order:

University will announce elections by taking written permission from the Superintendent of Police and/or deputy commissioner who will be responsible for maintaining law and order in association with university administration.

 

Recommendations for the year 2018-19

The above recommendations can be considered by the Government which after its approval need to be adopted by Executive council of the University in the year 2018.  Since the universities are going for elections after 22 years there is no or little mechanism/experience already existing. It is recommended, as per Lyngdoh committee report, that elections be held in the year 2018-19 for Class representatives and council be made from among the class representatives following the procedure laid above.  It is also recommended that elections be held on same date in the whole of the state. After successful 2018 elections and making any other modification required, direct elections of Office bearers may be held 2019 after review.

 

True Copy

 

Advocate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.________OF 2018

 

Anita and others                                                                                Petitioners

 

Versus

 

State of Haryana and another                                                       Respondents

 (A)

I N D E X

Sr. No. Particulars Dated Pages Court Fees
1. List of Dates and Events 15.10.2018 1-5
2. Civil Writ Petition 15.10.2018 6-13 200.00
3. Affidavit 15.10.2018 14
4. Annexure P-1 (Report) 23.05.2006 15-102
5. Annexure P-2

(Recommendations)

2006 103-121
6. Annexure P-3

(Impugned Report)

2018 122-141
7. Annexure P-4(Impugned Letter) 09.10.2018 142
8. Annexure P-5 (Notice) 143-144
9. Power of Attorney 14.10.2018 145 03.00
                                                                                      Total

NOTES:

  1. That the main law points involved in this writ petition are contained in Para No.15 at Page No. 11 of the Writ Petition.
  2. Relevant Rules/Act/Statutes
  3. i) Constitution of India.
  4. Similar case if any: NIL
  5. Whether Caveat Petition has been filed in this case: NO

 

 

 

PLACE:CHANDIGARH                                  (RAVINDER SINGH DHULL)

DATED: 15.10.2018                                                                           Advocate

                         Counsel for the Petitioners

P-991/03

 

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.________OF 2018

 

Anita and others                                                                                Petitioners

 

Versus

 

State of Haryana and another                                                       Respondents

 (B)

———————————————————————————————–

Court Fees Rs.

———————————————————————————————–

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

———————————————————————————————–

 

 

PLACE:CHANDIGARH                                  (RAVINDER SINGH DHULL)

DATED: 15.10.2018                                                                           Advocate

                         Counsel for the Petitioners

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *