The Telegraph
Thursday , November 29 , 2012
Since 1st March, 1999
CIMA Gallary

Court rejects student poll result petition

File picture of RD Womens’ College students protesting on their campus

Bhubaneswar, Nov. 28: The district and sessions court here has rejected a petition challenging the election of Pallavi Mohanty, who won the students’ union polls at Ramadevi College held in October this year.

The petition filed by Rajashree Rajasmita Bhanja, who had also contested for the post of president, said that Pallavi was an elected office bearer in the students’ election of 2011-12 and, therefore, her candidature was illegal according to the Lyngdoh Commission guidelines.

The civil judge (senior division), Bhubaneswar, D.R. Kanungo rejected the petition citing lack of prima facie evidence in the case.

According to Lyngdoh Commission guidelines, no student earlier elected to any post, is eligible for contesting elections for a second time. “Even though many objections were raised, the college authorities allowed Pallavi to contest the polls,” said the petitioner.

Rajashree had submitted the annual report published in the college magazine Arundhati where Pallavi was mentioned as assistant general secretary.

The state government represented by the department of higher education stated the petition against Pallavi was “false and baseless” and that no guidelines had been violated in the election procedure

While contesting the case, Pallavi had presented evidences that the election grievances redressal cell of the college had already adjudicated the matter on October 20. She said that she had never contested nor was elected to the post and the mention in the college magazine was a printing error.

Pallavi submitted a document procured through RTI Act stating that the office of the assistant general secretary was lying vacant in 2010-11, as there was no nomination.

Deepika Samantray, the only contestant for the post, had withdrawn before the final list of candidates was published, the document said.

The judge held that the petitioner had not provided any other evidence in terms of official documents other than the magazine, Arundhati, which is subject to scrutiny for erroneous printing.