Back
SATHISH NINAN
K. S. CHANDRASEKAR – Appellant
Versus
CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SATHISH NINAN, J.
1. In these writ petitions, the challenge is against the order of the Chancellor withdrawing his nominated members from the Senate of the 4th respondent University.
2. Section 17 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) deals with the constitution of the Senate of the University. The Senate contains four categories of members viz. “Ex-Officio Members” or “Elected Members” and “Life Members” and “Other Members.” W.P. (C) No. 33701/2022 and W.P. (C) No. 33677/2022 are by the members nominated by the Chancellor under Section 17 of the Act in the category of “Other Members” and W.P. (C) No. 33664/2022 is by the persons nominated by the Chancellor under Section 17 of the Act under the category, “Ex-Officio Members.”
3. Section 18(1) provides that, the Senate shall be re-constituted every four years. In terms of Section 18(2) of the Act, the term of office of nominated members under the head “Ex-Officio Members” is two years from the date of nomination. As per Section 18(3) of the Act, members other than “Ex-Officio” and “Life Members” are to hold office until the next re-constitution of the Senate. Section 18(3) of the Act has fo
“Arbitrary” and “capricious” in legal sense, as distinguished from opprobrious or popular meaning, are used in technical sense as meaning without rational basis.”
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 court established that while the Chancellor has discretion in nominations, such discretion must be exercised within the bounds of statutory requirements, ensuring that all relevant factors, inclu....
Point of Law : under the mandate of Section 10(1) of the 'Act', he/she shall be included in the Search- cum-Selection Committee, thus rendering it capable to function within the statutory scheme.
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....
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.
"Doctrine of Pleasure" has its genesis under common law - A public servant could be dismissed from service by Crown at its pleasure.
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
