Back
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Abdul Azeem – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. removal under doctrine of pleasure. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's argument on fixed tenure. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. no prejudice in petitioner's removal. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. precedents on doctrine of pleasure's constraints. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER
M. Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioner is before this Court initially seeking a direction to consider his representation dated 23-05-2023 and grant all consequential benefits. During the pendency of the petition, he raises a challenge to the Notification dated 15-12-2023 which removes the petitioner from the post of Chairman, Karnataka State Minorities Commission, Bengaluru ('the Commission for short).
2. Heard Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.Shashikiran Shetty, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
"Doctrine of Pleasure" has its genesis under common law - A public servant could be dismissed from service by Crown at its pleasure.
The doctrine of pleasure does not permit arbitrary or capricious exercise of power by the State, and such actions must comply with principles of fairness and Article 14 of the Constitution.
The doctrine of pleasure allows for removal from office without notice or reason, provided it is not arbitrary, and does not apply to those holding civil posts under the Constitution.
The doctrine of pleasure permits removal from office without notice or reason, provided it is not arbitrary, and does not apply to those not holding civil posts under the Constitution.
The doctrine of pleasure permits removal from office without adherence to principles of natural justice when the appointee does not hold a civil post.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Doctrine of Pleasure cannot be invoked in an arbitrary manner, and valid reasons are required for the removal of an appointed member. The ....
The court determined that a nominated member's removal must adhere to the procedural safeguards outlined in the Cantonments Act, and arbitrary substitution without adherence to these processes is ill....
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
