Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.V. ANJARIA, C.J., K.V. ARAVIND, J.
Dr. Venugopal – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka - Respondent
WRIT APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2024 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 714 OF 2024 (GM-RES) AND WRIT APPEAL NO. 870 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
Decided on : 07-08-2024
Doctrine of Pleasure - Membership Termination - Rajiv Gandhi University Act, 1994 - Sections 31, 24
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged a notification cancelling their nominations as members of the Syndicate of Rajiv Gandhi University, arguing that their terms were improperly curtailed and that the doctrine of pleasure was misapplied.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants' terms were co-terminus with the Syndicate's three-year term, which had expired, thus they had no right to continue beyond that period.
Issues: Whether the appellants had a right to continue as members of the Syndicate after the expiration of their three-year term and the applicability of the doctrine of pleasure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the membership of the Syndicate is co-terminus with the term of the Syndicate itself, and once the term expired, the appellants could not claim any right to continue.
Result: All three writ appeals are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned Senior Advocate Sri K.N. Phanindra assisted by learned advocate Smt. Vaishali Hegde for the appellants in Writ Appeal Nos.635 of 2024, learned Advocate Sri Sandeep S. Patil for the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 714 of 2024 and learned Senior Advocate Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi assisted by Advocate Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar for the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 870 of 2024, learned Advocate General Sri K. Shashikiran Shetty along with learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent No.1 and learned Senior Advocate Sri Madhusudan R. Naik assisted by learned advocate Smt. Farah Fathima for respondent No.2.
2. The three writ appeals that is Writ Appeal Nos.635 of 2024, 714 of 2024 and 870 of 2024 arise out of common judgment and order dated 05.04.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.10837 of 2023 and 10994 of 2023. The petitions came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge.
2.1 The facts in both the petitions were similar and the issue involved identical. Noticing the basic facts from Writ Petition No.10837 of 2023, what was prayed by the petitioners was to set aside the Notification dated 25.05.2023 issued by respondent No.1- State and to consider the representation dated 23.05.2023 filed by the petitioners in light of Sections 31 and 55 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994.
2.2 By the said Notification dated 25.05.2023 impugned in the petition, earlier Notifications dated 13.12.2022 and 06.02.2023 came to be annulled. The net result was that the nomination of the petitioners as members of the syndicate of the University was cancelled.
2.3 In the other petition from which Writ Appeal No.870 of 2024 arose, the petitioner was nominated as Chairman of the Central Relief Committee under the Karnataka Prohibition of Beggary Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Beggary Act’) for a period of three years under the Notification dated 26.07.2022. By virtue of the impugned notification, cancelling the earlier notification, the petitioner ceased to be the Chairman of the Committee from the date of notification.
2.4 In both the cases, this Court granted interim order suspending the impugned Notification. The respective petitioners continued as members of the Syndicate and the Chairman of the Central Relief Committee, respectively till date.
3. Setting out the facts with some details, the appellants of Writ Appeal No.635 of 2024, the petitioners of Writ Petition No.10837 of 2023 came to be nominated as members of the Syndicate of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rajiv Gandhi University’) on 13.12.2022 which was under Section 24 (1) (xii) of the Rajiv Gandhi University Act. It was mentioned in the notification that the term of the appointees would be “with immediate effect and till further three years or till further government orders, whichever is earlier”.
3.1 A corrigendum came to be issued on 06.02.2023, whereby the words “or further government orders, whichever is earlier” came to be deleted. The Revised Notification dated 07.02.2023 was issued by the Rajiv Gandhi University mentioning that the term of the office of the petitioners-members shall be for a period of three years with effect from 13.12.2022.
3.2 It is thereafter that the impugned Notification dated 25.05.2023 was issued cancelling the nominations of the appellants- petitioners with effect from 24.05.2023 on the ground of “in the interest of public and administration of the University”. It was claimed by the petitioners that the Hon’ble Chief Minister had issued tippani dated 22.05.2023 directing cancellation of all nominations, on account of which the Notification dated 25.05.2023 was issued.
3.3 In the context of above premise of facts and pleadings, the writ petition was filed challenging the impugned Notification dated 25.05.2023, whereby as stated above, the membership of the petitioners
Membership in the Syndicate is limited to the statutory term, and the doctrine of pleasure does not grant an absolute right to continue beyond that term.
Point of law : Mere political exigencies or clamor for positions of power by the supporters of the ruling dispensation should not be a ground to disturb or revoke the appointment of qualified persons....
University cannot insist as to how the representatives are required to be elected by the petitioner who will be the members of the Syndicate as per Section 22(1)(f) of the Act, 1955. It is for the pe....
“Arbitrary” and “capricious” in legal sense, as distinguished from opprobrious or popular meaning, are used in technical sense as meaning without rational basis.”
Nominated members of statutory bodies cannot be unilaterally removed by the nominating authority without a directive from a higher authority, ensuring continuity in representation.
The exercise of the 'Doctrine of Pleasure' by the Chancellor must not be arbitrary or capricious; the court can intervene if such withdrawal lacks justification.
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.
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
