Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:23403 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.88 of 2025 Decided on: 17.07.2025 Central University of Himachal Pradesh ....Appellant Versus Hem Raj ....Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?2 For the Appellant : Mr.Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Narender Singh Thakur and Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the Central University of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the learned Single Judge had allowed CWP No.11237 of 2024 titled Hem Raj Vs. Central University, decided on 11.12.2024 and set aside the communication dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-7) issued by the Dean Academics-cum-Returning Officer of the Central University of Himachal Pradesh (CUHP). Resultantly, the directions have been issued that the rejection of the nomination 2 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 paper was wrongly caused and the election process should have been from the stage of rejection of nomination paper and needful was to be done within three months. 2. The reasoning which weighed to the learned Single Judge to allow the writ petition as such was on the ground that the rejection had been done on account of the fact that the petitioner had submitted five sets of nomination papers, and there was no such rule or bar for the candidate to submit more than one nomination paper, for the Representative of the Non- Teaching staff of the Regular Employees of the appellant- University. 3. The learned Single Judge apparently had called for the record and came to the finding that in the past, the petitioner had submitted five sets of nomination papers, which had been duly accepted and therefore, he came to the conclusion that the writ Court as such would have power to interfere in the election process, since the result had been declared on 16.08.2024 and there being no remedy provided in the law for filing appeal against the order of the Returning Officer. The jurisdication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as such was liable to be invoked and therefore, the Court could not be estopped from redressing the grievance as such of the writ petitioner. 3 4. We are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge needs to be interfered with on the sole premise that the learned Single Judge had chosen not to examine the notification and that the right of filing of the sole nomination paper was on account of the said notification dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure-I) placed on record by the University itself. A persual of the same would go on to show that for the purpose of election schedule the specific date had been fixed on 08.08.2024 whereby, nomination paper (in singular) could be filed from 12 ‘O’ Clock onwards and the cut off time as such on 08.08.2024 was at 5 ‘O’ Clock. The said notice very clearly mentions that the scrutiny of the nomination papers (in singular) were to be done on 09.08.2025 at 12 ‘O’ Clock. The relevant part of the nomination reads as under:- “Notification 1. In order to conduct smooth and peaceful elections to constitute the Court of University under Section 20(1) and Sub-Clause (xvii) "Representative of Non-Teaching Staff – One" (elected by the regular employees of the University/Affiliated Colleges) of clause 10(5)(i) of Statute of the University Act, the undersigned has been appointed as the Returning Officer vide Office Order No. 1-9/H.P.K.V./ SA/2012/4423-33, dated 02 August, 2022. 2. In view of the above, and with the approval of the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor, an election will be held to elect “Representative of Non-Teaching Staff – One” to the Court of Himachal Pradesh Central University as per the following schedule: 4 Election Schedule Sr. No. Work/Job Description Date and Time 1. Date of issue of notification for election 06.08.2024, 11:00 a.m 2. Display of the voter list 06.08.2024, 03:00 p.m 3. Receipt of request for amendment in voter list 07.08.2024, 01:00 p.m 4. Date of release of final voter list 07.08.2024, 05:00 p.m 5. Date for submission of nomination paper 08.08.2024, 12:00 noon 6. Last date for submission of nomination paper 08.08.2024, 05:00 p.m 7. Scrutiny of nomination papers 09.08.2024, 12:00 noon 8. Date of release of list of candidates 09.08.2024, 05:00 p.m 9. Last date for withdrawal of nomination 12.08.2024, 12:00 noon 5. This aspect has not been highlighted unfortunately apparently in the arguments. It is also a matter of record that apart from the writ petitioner, there was another candidate also, whose nomination paper was also rejected. It is pertinent to notice that the nomination paper was duly scrutinized by the three Members Committee. The petitioner was informed vide Annexure P-7, the reasons as such why the nomination papers have been rejected. The said reasons read are as under:- “Subject: Rejection of Nomination Paper for CUHP Court Election. Dear Hem Raj ji, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing in response to your representation regarding the rejection of your nomination paper for the position of Court Member of the Central University of Himachal Pradesh (CUHP). The scrutiny committee reviewed your submission and noted that you submitted five different nomination forms. A candidate is required to submit only one nomination form. 5 Alternatively, if you wished to submit multiple copies, these should have been identical sets of the same nomination form. Unfortunately, the submission of five different forms created confusion during the scrutiny process, as the committee could not determine which of the nominations was intended for consideration. This led to the rejection of your nomination in accordance with rules governing the election process. I understand this outcome may be disappointing, but the rules are in place to ensure a fair and transparent election process. Thank your for your understanding.” 6. We have also perused the set of the nomination papers filed by the respondent appended along with the reply of the University in the writ file which would go on to show that the different persons have been Proposers and Seconders. The details of nomination papers filed by the other contestant Rajeev Rajput was incomplete as the Proposer and Seconder had not filed the columns related to Aadhar Card Number and Pan Number and therefore, the nomination paper of the said candidate had also been rejected. 7. The minutes of the Screening Committee (Annexure 13) had also mentioned the reasons as such of the rejection of the nomination papers, and there are no allegations of malafide as such against the members of the Screening Committee. 8. It is settled principle of law that the nomination papers would have to be duly scrutinized as such to find out whether there is any defect or not and therefore, the petitioner as 6 such was bound by the notification and had only to submit one nomination paper and not burden the Committee as such with plurality of nomination papers. If that is permitted then the petitioner by filing twenty nomination papers would have brudened the Committee to scrutinize each and everyone’s name for the Proposers and the Seconders and to find out whether they are part of the electoral roll as such. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the reasoning which had weighed the Committee did not warrant any interference on this account merely because of procedure which might have been adopted on earlier occasion. Such an exercise having been permitted would not as such give reasons for illegality to continue in the future also. Even otherwise, it has not come on record that to what was the exact terms of the earlier notification and whether it provided only one nomination paper to be filed. Since the learned Single Judge had not referred to the notification dated 06.08.2024, in such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not justified in the facts and circumstances. 9. The arguments raised that the defence as such for the Union of India was on the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short ‘Act’), which permits filing of more than one 7 nomination paper is misconceived, as apparently, the said rules had never been relied upon by the writ petitioner himself. Secondly, the ‘Act’ is not applicable in the facts and circumstances. Merely, because the Union of India-the appellant has referred to the said ‘Act’, would not as such give right to fall back in the same and the provisions of the said ‘Act’ can not be read for the purposes of election in question, so far as the writ petitioner was concerned. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 11.12.2024 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. 10. Counsel for the appellant has allayed the fear of the respondent that the election would be held again within two months from today. 11. All pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 17th July, 2025 (munish thakur)