K.M. Joseph, J.

1. Appeals being connected, they are disposed of by a common judgment. The appellant in both the cases is the writ petitioner in the two writ petitions from which these appeals arise.

2. Writ Appeal No.1832 of 2013 is filed against Writ Petition No. 28829 of 2012 whereas Writ Appeal No.1849 of 2013 is filed against judgment in Writ Petition No.13928 of 2013.

3. The appellant was nominated as a member of the Senate of the respondent University (Kerala University) vide Ext.P1 notification dated 20.12.2010. He was to hold the office until the next reconstitution of the Senate. The term of the Senate is four years. The Kerala University Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')was amended by ordinance 58/2011. The 4th proviso was added to section 18(3). The nominated members were to hold their office subject to Doctrine of Pleasure, that ie., they were to hold their office during the pleasure of the person who nominated them. In the case of the appellant, he was nominated by the Chancellor. Writ Petition No.28829 of 2012 is filed initially on the basis of issuance of Ext.P4 and Ext.P5. By Ext.P4 dated 26.11.2012, which is seen issued by the Secretary to Governor, the nomination of the appellant is withdrawn in exercise of power under the 4th proviso to section 18(3). By Ext.P5 notification referring to the order of the Chancellor to withdraw the nomination, it is notified that he has ceased to be a member of the senate of the University with immediate effect. Originally when the appellant approached this court the following prayers were sought :

“i) Call for the record leading to Exts.P4 & P5 and also the order of the Chancellor withdrawing the nomination of the petitioner and to quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari.

ii) Declare that a person nominated to the senate of the Kerala University prior to the date of commencement of the University Laws (Amending Act 2012) is not holding the post during the Pleasure of the Chancellor and he cannot be removed from office invoking proviso to sub section (3) to section 18 of the Act;”

4. It appears that appellant had made application under Right to Information Act and appellant obtained Ext.P8 series. Ext.P8 series purport to be the relevant records from the file relating to the nomination of the appellant. Therein the Chancellor of the University who happened to be the Governor at that stage has purported to state that he agrees to what is stated therein. It is thereupon the Writ Petition was amended and prayers 2(a) and 2(b) were added.

“ii(a) Declare that there is no order by the Chancellor terminating the petitioner's membership in Syndicate of the 2nd respondent University and that petitioner continues to be a member of the Syndicate of the 2nd respondent University.

ii(b) Declare that the petitioner continues to be a member of the Syndicate of the 2nd respondent University and Ext.P5 and P6 orders do not affect his membership of Syndicate of the 2nd respondent University in any manner.”

While he was a member of the Senate appellant was also elected to the Search Committee constituted for recommendation of names for appointment of Vice Chancellor of the University.

5. On the basis of withdrawal of the nomination of the appellant, the University proceeded to conduct election to the vacancy of the appellant also arising in the Search Committee and one Sivankutty was elected. Appellant challenged the same by filing Writ Petition No.9353 of 2013. Subsequently election of Sri. Sivankutty was anulled and withdrawn by the University and it issued another notification, which is produced as Ext.P10 in Writ Petition No.13928 of 2013 wherein they decided to conduct fresh election consequent upon the cancellation of election of Sri. Sivankutty. That came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 13928/2013 along with Ext.P11 which also was a notification relating to the said matter. All the three Writ Petitions were considered together.

6. The contentions taken before th