IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, J.
Dr. K.S. Chandrasekar – Petitioner
Versus
The Chancellor University of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 33701, 33677, 33664 of 2022
Decided On : 24-03-2023
Kerala University Act, 1974 - Sections 17, 18(1),(2),(3) - Whether exercise of pleasure doctrine was arbitrary capricious or malafide - Held, As noticed earlier nominee Section 17 of Act is not a mere mouthpiece or an agent - His actions need be in accordance with law - He has to act according to law - Order of withdrawal of nominated members is not for any alleged illegal act - While this Court is not to sit in judgment or appeal over reasons for withdrawal of nomination it is evident that order is not based on any reason but was rather founded on prejudice - It was an unreasoned act without regard - All above points to arbitrariness - Writ Petitions Allowed.
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”, “Elected Members”, “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 four provisos; the th proviso alone being relevant here, is extracted hereunder:
4. The nomination of the petitioners in these writ petitions have been withdrawn by the Chancellor in exercise of the powers conferred under the said proviso which has ingrained therein, the “Doctrine of Pleasure.”
5. The short background which led to the action of the Chancellor in withdrawing nominations of the petitioners is as under.
6. The Vice Chancellor in office was due to retire on 24.10.2022. Section 10(1) of the Act provides for appointment of Vice Chancellor by the Chancellor in the mode prescribed therein. Section 10(1) reads thus:
7. As is evident from the Section, it postulates the constitution of a three-member committee by the Chancellor. The committee is commonly known as the, “Search-cum-Selection Committee.” The said committee consists of, (i) one member elected by the Senate, (ii) one member nominated by the Chairman of the University Grants Commission, and (iii) the third member nominated by the Chancellor. The Chancellor is to appoint one among the members of the Committee as its Convenor. On the unanimous recommendation of the Committee, the Chancellor is to appoint the Vice Chancellor.
8. Foreseeing the retirement of the Vice-Chancellor in Office, the Chancellor required the Senate to nominate a member to constitute the three-member selection committee. The Chancellor got an impression that there is lack of co-operation from the Senate. He felt that even his nominated members were aiding such action/ inaction. This led to the withdrawal of his nominated members from the Senate.
9. The documents relied on in these writ petitions are more or less common. For the sake of convenience, the Exhibits produced along with WP(C) No. 33701 of 2022 are referred to in this judgment.
10. Now I proceed to deal with the factual details, with the events. On 13.06.2022, a communication [Ext.R2(a)] was issued from the office of the Chancellor to the University, requiring to elect a member from the Senate, for constituting the three member “search-cum- selection committee.” Steps were so initiated
B.P. Singhal vs. Union of India and Others
Deepak vs. University of Kerala
Krishna vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Saji D. Anand vs. State of Kerala and Others
“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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.