IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION No.102431/2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

RAVIKUMAR BASAVARAJ MALIGER

AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. SYNDICATE MEMBER

ADD. BASAVARTNA, 1ST MAIN 8 CROSS,

KALYAN NAGAR, DHARWAD-580007

.. PETITIONER

(BY SRI.MRUTYUNJAYA S.HALLIKERI, ADV.)

AND:

1 .

STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION

KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT

M.S . BUILDING 6TH FLOOR,

BENGALURU-560001

2 .

THE UNDER SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (UNIVERSITIES-2)

KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARRIAT,

M.S. BUILDING , 6TH FLOOR,

BENGALURU-560001

3 .

THE REGISTRAR

KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, DHARWAD

4 .

SANDEEP M BUDIHAL

AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. PU COLLEGE TEACHER

ADD. INDU CHANDIRA,

2

JAWAHAR LAYOUT, CHETANA COLONY,

HUBBALLI-31, DIST. DHARWAD

.. RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1 & R2

SRI.MALLIKARJUN HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R3(VK NOT FILED),

SRI.MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, ADV. FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT, ORDER,

OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE

NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.ED 48 UKV 2022 DATED 01.07.2022

ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST

OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

ORDERS ON 03.09.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF

ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking writ of

certiorari to quash the notification dated 01.07.2022 issued

by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-C.

2.

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ

petition are as under:

Petitioner was nominated by the State as member of

the Syndicate of the Karnataka University, Dharwad under

notification

dated

10.12.2019

issued

under

Section

28(1)(g) read with Section 39(1) of the Karnataka State

3

Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 8the Act9

for short). The term of nomination of the Syndicate

members is three years or until further orders whichever is

earlier. Even before expiry of three years period,

respondent No.2 in exercise of its power under Section

39(1) of the Act issued notification withdrawing the

nomination of the petitioner and nominated respondent

No.4 in his place vide Annexure-C dated 01.07.2022. The

petitioner aggrieved by the notification dated 01.07.2022

filed by this writ petition.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the respondents.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

doctrine of pleasure does not imply absolute discretion

granted by the law. He submits that doctrine of pleasure

cannot be linked to the discretion of an emperor. Further,

the impugned notification does not indicate any reasons for

4

withdrawing the nomination of the petitioner. He submits

that respondent No.2 has no authority to withdraw the

nomination of the petitioner before expiry of the period. He

submits that removal of the petitioner is malice in law, that

too without hearing of the petitioner. Hence, on these

grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that in identical matter, the Coordinate Bench of

this Court in W.P.No.7912/2022 disposed of on 20.07.2022

considered Section 39(1) and (3) of the Act and dismissed

the writ petition of similarly placed nominated members.

He submits that issue involved in this writ petition is

squarely covered by the judgment of Coordinate Bench of

this Court in W.P.No.7912/2022. Hence, on these grounds,

he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

5

6.

Heard, perused the records and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The

point falls for consideration is:

<Whether

the

impugned

notification