1. Heard Mr.Hardik C. Rawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.R. Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Saurashtra University.
2. Mr.Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Saurashtra University has raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of this petition.
3. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to paragraph No.2 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Ramesh G. Parmar - In-charge Registrar of the Saurashtra University, which reads as under:-
"2.
I say that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained under Section 59 of The Saurashtra University Act. Which read as under:-
SECTION-59:
Disputes as to constitution of University authority or body.
Where any question arises as to (1) the interpretation of any provision of this Act, or any Statute, Ordinance, Regulation or Rule, or (2) whether a person has been duly elected or appointed as, or is entitled to be or ceases to be, entitled to be a member of any authority or other body of the University.
(a) it may be referred to the State Government if it relates to a matter specified in clause (1), and (b) it may be referred to the State Government if (i) it relates to a matter specified in clause (2), or (ii) if twenty members of the Senate so require irrespective of whether it relates to a matter specified in clause (1) or clause (2), and the State Government shall after making such inquiry as it deems fit (including giving an opportunity of being heard where necessary) decide the question and its decision shall be final.] I say that the present petition has been filed for not including the name of the petitioner in the voters' list as per the provisions of Statute-2 of the Saurashtra University Statute. The petitioner has challenged the letter dated 13.01.2012 of the University. I say that looking to the petition filed by the petitioner, the question involved in the present petition is regarding the interpretation of S.2(10) of The Saurashtra University Act and the Statute 2 of the Saurashtra University. The said question is required to be interpreted, then the only remedy under Sec.59 of The Saurashtra University Act to refer the matter to the State Government in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1988 S.C.66 in the matter of Gujarat University Vs. N.V. Rajguru. In the said matter, the question was involved of Sec.58 of The Gujarat University Act, which runs as under:-
SECTION 58: Disputes as to constitution of University authority or body Where any question arises as to -
the interpretation of any provision of this Act, or of any statute, Ordinance, Regulation or Rules, or (2) whether a person has been duly elected or appointed as, or is entitled to be or ceases to be entitled to be, a member of any authority or other body of the University,-
(a) It may be referred to the State Government if it relates to a matter specified in clause (1), and (b) It shall be referred to the State Government if - (i) It relates to a matter specified in clause (2), or (ii) If twenty members of the Court so require, irrespective of whether it relates to a matter specified in clause (1) or clause (2) and the State Government shall after making such inquiry as it deems fit (including giving opportunity of being heard where necessary) decide the question and its decision shall be final.
which is pari-materia with Sec.59 of The Saurashtra University Act. In view of this, the petition having alternative remedy and position filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and required to be rejected."
4. In the present petition, Mr.Rawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised various issues as regards the eligibility of the petitioner, who holds degree of diploma in architecture and submitted that the said degree is equivalent to the graduate and, therefore, in view of the provisions of the Saurashtra University Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act'), guidelines of AICTE as well as in view of the provisions of Architecture Act, 1972, the petitioner is otherwise eligible to be registered as graduate.
5. However, in light of the above provisions, this Court has restrained itself from going into those issues and Mr.Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Thakkar, learned counsel for the respondent have candidly submitted that as the petitioner is to approach the State Government as per the provisions of Section 59 of the Act, this Court may not express its opinion on the issues raised by both the sides.
6. In light of the provisions of Section 59 of the Act, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the petition is not entertained leaving it open for the petitioner to resort to the remedy available under Section 59 of the Act.
7. It is however, made clear at this stage that the above decision may not be interpreted to mean that in light of Section 59 of the Act, this Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is not entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it would be open for the petitioner to resort to the alternative remedy available to him. It would also be open for the petitioner to file an appropriate application for urgent disposal of the same before the concerned authorities of the State Government.
9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) Hitesh Top