RASHTRASANT TUKADOJI MAHARAJ NAGPUR UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR
(Established by Government of Central Provinces Education Department by Notification No. 513, dated 1 st of
August, 1923 & presently a State University governed by Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994).
Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Administrative Premises, Maharajbagh Chowk, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 01.
Tel No. 0712- 2532063, 2560624, 2525417
Fax No. 0712-2532841, 2561347
Date: 4th July, 2011
No. VC/BOS/11/APP/260
ORDER
On Application
Appeal By : Dr. K. Panickar & Dr. G. Baghmar
Appeal Against: (1) The Returning Officer, RTM Nagpur University, Nagpur
Matter : First Meeting Co-option Appeal regarding Elections 2010-11
Order:
This is an appeal filed by 27.6.2011 challenging the procedure of co-option in the meeting dated
22.6.2011 in Board of Studies in Languages in Science.
I have heard the appellant and the Returning Officer at length on 1.7.2011.
1}
It is alleged by the appellant that for co-option under Section 37(3)(a) of the Act, the name of
Dr. Amol Padwad was proposed but the Presiding Officer had rejected his nomination paper. In so
far as co-option under Section 37(3)(a) is concerned the requirement as per Statute is that –
i) he should be a teacher in subject in which P. G. course is conducted.
I have carefully considered the eligibility criteria _Dr. Amol Padwad is lecturer in English in J.M.
Patel College, Bhandara in B.Sc. course. The subject English is the subject of first B.Sc. course
and hence there is no P. G. course in English in Science Faculty in that college.
Therefore Dr. Amol Padwad could not justify the eligibility criteria for being co-opted under
Section 37(3)(a) of the Act. I do not find any infirmity in the action of the P. O. in rejecting the
nomination paper of Dr. Amol Padwad. There is no substance in the contention raised by the
appellant.
2}
In so far as co-option under Section 37(3)(c)(i) is concerned one person who is Reader/Professor in
another university is to be co-opted. It is seen from the record that for this co-option only two
nominations were received (i) Dr. Khan (ii) Dr. Shrivastava. Hence election was held by secrete
ballot and finally in view of tie of votes, the candidate was elected by draw. It is the contention of
the appellant that name of Dr. Madhu Kamra was not included in the ballot paper. In the absence
of any nomination paper, it was not permissible for the Presiding Officer to include the name of Dr.
Madhu Kamra in the ballot paper. The grievance is completely imaginary and can not be accepted.
It is also necessary to hold that the grievance is totally an after thought. The appellant had
participated in election and had cast has his vote also. There is no objection in working on record
establishing that the appellant had raised objection. More importantly the appellant also does not
refer to submission of nomination paper of Dr. Madhu Kamra. Therefore I find that the contention
raised by the appellant does not find any support from the records. I do not find any error in the
process conducted by the Returning Officer.
3}
For co-option under Section 37 (3)(c)(iii) also there were three names namely Dr. Singh,
Dr. Keralaverma and Dr. Madhu Kamra. Here also two persons had secured equal vote (3 each)
and finally in draw Dr. Singh was elected. Accordingly to the appellant one vote of Dr. R. P. Singh
was required to be declared as invalid. I have carefully examined the ballot paper. It is evident
that the voter has affixed the rubber stamp against the name of Dr. Singh where about 80% of
portion is in the column against Dr. Singh and small portion is on the line and beyond that. Hence
I do not find any irregularity committed by the Returning Officer.\
4}
It is surprising that despite clear mandate of Section 37(c) that only two persons are to be co-opted,
the appellant has raised a grievance about co-option of 3rd person and refusal of Returning Officer
to undertake the process when statute prescribed co-option of two persons and as both the
co-option were completed, the question of co-option of additional person on the Board did not
arise.
5}
Hence I find that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected.
6}
Before closing the order it is necessary to place it on record that the officials of the University are
expected to carry out their duties efficiently. In the present case Returning Officer has done the
same without any detect or irregularity. The allegations made by the appellant about manipulations
are uncalled for and totally ill-founded. The teacher of affiliated colleges and university are
expected to carry respect towards university and university officials.
Hence I find that the
allegations of manipulation against the Returning Officer are irresponsible and uncalled for.
Therefore it would be befitting to send the copy of this order alongwith copy of memo of appeal to
the management of J.M. Patel College, Bhandara with a request to take note of the said allegations
and to take appropriate action against the appellant for raising irresponsible allegations against the
Returning Officer / the Registrar.
Sd/-
(Dr. V. S. SAPKAL)
Vice-Chancellor & Appellate Authority.
Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur.