Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G.Narendar, J.
Dr. Deepthi Bhava W/O Ashraf Bhava And Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Dept. Of Health And Family Welfare (Medical Education) And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.13414, 12650, 12652 of 2020
Decided On : 11-06-2021
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 – Sections 21, 24, 11 – Appointment of senate members – Removal of Membership – Petitioners in W.P. are members of Syndicate body of University constituted under Section 24 of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 – Petitioners in W.P. came to be removed from membership of Syndicate, by a common order produced as Annexure-A in lead petition and under very said order, private respondent Nos.3 to 7 came to be appointed in place of petitioners – Aggrieved, petitioners are before this Court. Similarly, petitioners in W.P, who are members of ihe Senate, came to be removed by a common order produced as Annexure-E to writ petition and simultaneously, private respondents came to be appointed in place of petitioners under said order – Only discernable difference in two sets of writ petitions Le., in respect of Syndicate and Senate members is, appointment of senate members (W.P.No.12650/2020) also came to be notified by University under the Notification which is produced as Annexure-C – Insofar as it relates to Syndicate members, no such Notification came to be issued.
Finding of the Court:
Court is of considered opinion that arguments and submissions canvassed with regard to appointments of petitioners being subject to pleasure doctrine is wholly unfounded and misconceived – Even assuming that pleasure doctrine is applicable for arguments sake, iaw is no more res integra, where there is security of tenure then removal cannot be at sweet wiil and pleasure of Government or authorities but only for reasons recorded – Withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at sweet will, whim and fancy of authority, but can only be for valid reasons – Moreover, power of withdrawal of pleasure can be used reasonably and only for public good – Neither is there a public good, nor it is demonstrated that administration has faltered on account of these persons. If appointment is for a definite tenure, that is till reconstitution members could not have been removed by competent authority or by State Government without recordinq valid reasons – It is not pointed out by respondents, either by University or State Government as to how administration suffered on account of appointment of these petitioners – In absence of any valid and reasonable ground, removal on ground of exercise of pleasure Doctrine is rendered arbitrary – That apart, it is apparent that removal came about and after change in Ruling dispensation and hence a political bias also cannot be ruled out. In that view of matter, same amounts to colourable exercise of power and stands vitiated on that ground also.
Result : Writ Petitions Allowed
ORDER :
Heard Sri.Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel along with Sri. Shashidhara H. N., learned counsel for the petitioners in the lead petition – W.P.No.13414/2020, Sri. P. S. Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel along with Smt. Ashwini Rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioners in the companion petition W.P.No.12650/2020, Sri. Jayanth Dev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.12652/2020, Sri. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri. N. K. Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent – University and Smt.Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent – State. The Pleadings have been completed.
2. The petitioners in W.P.No.13414/2020 and W.P.No.12652/2020 are the members of the Syndicate body of the University constituted under Section 24 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act-1994’ for short) and the petitioners in W.P.No.12650/2020 are the members of the Senate body constituted under Section 21 of the Act-1994. The petitioners in W.P.No.13414/2020 and W.P.No.12652/2020 came to be removed from the membership of the Syndicate, by a common order produced as Annexure-A in the lead petition and under the very said order, private respondent Nos.3 to 7 came to be appointed in the place of the petitioners. Aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court. Similarly, petitioners in W.P.No.12650/2020, who are the members of the Senate, came to be removed by a common order dated 23.10.2020 produced as Annexure-E to the writ petition and simultaneously, private respondents came to be appointed in the place of the petitioners under the said order. The only discernable difference in the two sets of writ petitions i.e., in respect of Syndicate and Senate members is, the appointment of the senate members (W.P.No.12650/2020) also came to be notified by the University under the Notification No.RGUHS/AUTH/Senate/Reconstitution/23/2018-19 dated 23.10.2018, which is produced as Annexure-C (W.P.No.12650/2020). Insofar as it relates to the Syndicate members, no such Notification came to be issued.
3. The petitioners are hereinafter referred to as syndicate and senate members for the purpose of brevity and convenience.
4. There is no dispute with regard to the facts pertaining to the appointment and removal of the petitioners from the Syndicate and Senate bodies. The Syndicate members came to be appointed to the body syndicate of the University by order dated 16.10.2018 and were removed from the membership of the syndicate by Notification dated 23.10.2020. Insofar as senate members are concerned, the said members also came to be appointed to the senate of the University by Notification dated 16.10.2018 and came to be removed by Notification dated 23.10.2020. It is also not in dispute that the power of appointment of members to the respective bodies, by way of nomination, to either of the bodies is traceable only to the Act-1994. Though, it was initially asserted that nominations and removal can be made by the Government, it was later conceded that the power of appointment of members to the respective bodies, by way of nomination, is traceable only to the Act-1994.
5. Sri.P.S.Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel would submit that the order impugned is per se violative of the law laid down by this Court and that the issue is no more res integra and is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of G. Ashok Kumar vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2020 (1) KAR. L.J. 461 and would submit that the impugned order requires to go in the light of the law as laid down by this Court in the case stated supra and as affirmed by the Division Bench. It is further submitted that the said ruling has been rendered in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.P.Singhal vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 331. He would contend that the members were appointed to a fixed tenu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
