1. The controversy herein is whether the notification issued by the Chancellor, by which, the term of the first Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University was curtailed by invoking Section 12(7) of the Act, is justifiable. The plea raised by the petitioner mainly is that he is entitled to continue for a period of five years. It is submitted that the pleasure doctrine under Section 12(7) of the Act is subject to restrictions contained in sub-section (8) of the Act, and not absolute.

2. The necessary facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are the following: The petitioner is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service. The Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 2010 (for short 'the Act') came into force on 14.06.2010. The petitioner who was on deputation to the Government of India, was considered for appointment as the first Vice-Chancellor of the University. The order leading to his repatriation and the notification concerning his appointment have been produced as Exts. P1 and P2. The petitioner has been continuing as such after assumption of office on 03.01.2011. According to the petitioner, he was performing his duties to the satisfaction of everybody and he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor after the Government was fully satisfied about his qualifications and the suitability to hold the post.

3. Ext.P3 is the order by which the Government decided to recall the petitioner from the post of the Vice-Chancellor of the University with the permission of the Governor of Kerala and consequently, the Government placed at the disposal of the Animal Husbandry Department the service of the fifth respondent who is the Additional Chief Secretary and the Agricultural Production Commissioner, for holding the charge of the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Ext.P4 is the notification issued by the Chancellor of the University, whereby in supersession of Ext.P2 notification by which the petitioner was appointed as First Vice-Chancellor, the fifth respondent has been authorised to exercise the powers of the Vice-Chancellor of the University till a new Vice-Chancellor is appointed under the provisions of the Act.

4. The petitioner has raised the following grounds to challenge the order/notification: (a) That he is entitled to continue as Vice-Chancellor of the University till 02.01.2016, as the tenure of his appointment is for a period of five years and can be removed only under Section 12(8) of the Act; (b) There are no administrative reasons warranting his recalling; (c) The whole functioning of the University will be affected by the process now initiated; and (d) The order/notification are issued due to extraneous and irrelevant reasons and are vitiated by mala fides.

5. In that context, the petitioner also alleges that he had occasion to publish an article in one of the leading Malayalam Dailies on 10.10.2011, produced as Ext.P6 which has provoked the Chief Secretary and the 5th respondent, the Additional Chief Secretary and they had caused the issuance of Ext.P3.

6. Since the main argument rests on the fixed tenure of the appointment of the petitioner and his right to hold office for a period of five years, it is profitable to consider the statutory provisions in this regard. Section 12 provides for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. Section 12 along with the sub-sections are reproduced below:

"12. The Vice-Chancellor. - (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be responsible for the duties allotted to him specifically by the Chancellor with the approval of the Board of Management or under this Act or Statutes and he shall preside over the meetings of the authorities of the University in the absence of the Chancellor.(2) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor from among the panel of names recommended by the Search Committee consisting of the following members, namely -(i) One member nominated by the chancellor;(ii) One member nominated by the Government;(iii) Di