Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24367
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD, J
DR H.VISHWANATH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.14899 OF 2025(S-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI VIVEK S REDDY, SRI. A D RAMANANDA
For the Respondents: SRI VIKAS R, SRI UDAY HOLLA, SMT. KEETHI REDDY, SRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, SRI VIKARAM S HUILGOL
The doctrine of pleasure allows for removal without notice but must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily; reasons for removal should exist, maintaining judicial oversight.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka State Open University Act, 1982 - Section 13; Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition challenging removal of Registrar (Evaluation) without reason - Petitioner was appointed after due process but removed on grounds of 'doctrine of pleasure' without justification - Action held arbitrary and in violation of statutory provisions. (Paras 3, 10, 11, 20, 24)
(B) Doctrine of Pleasure - Applicability in India - While the doctrine allows removal without notice, it does not permit arbitrary actions; reasons must exist even if not communicated - Defining the limits of discretion to prevent misuse of the doctrine. (Paras 22, 34, 16)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner was appointed as Registrar (Evaluation) after consultation with relevant authorities; a notification replaced him without stating reasons. (Para 2)
Findings of Court:
The removal of the petitioner was arbitrary as no reasons were recorded for such action; the doctrine of pleasure cannot be invoked without cause. (Para 20)
Issues: The main issue was whether the removal of the petitioner was justified under the doctrine of pleasure without providing reasons. (Para 10)
Ratio Decidendi: Courts must scrutinize the exercise of pleasure to ensure that it is not done arbitrarily; a valid reason is required for removal. (Paras 34)
Result: Writ petition allowed; the impugned order quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges appointment notification (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's qualifications and prior role (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments for validity of petitioner's removal (Para 4) |
| 4. respondents justify actions based on law (Para 5) |
| 5. third respondent's stance on appointment legality (Para 6) |
| 6. court's preliminary deliberation on the case (Para 10) |
| 7. maintainability and doctrine of pleasure discussed (Para 11 , 12 , 16) |
| 8. court concludes prior actions lacked validity (Para 23) |
| 9. court quashes the impugned order (Para 24) |
CAV ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned notification dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure-A), issued by the second respondent, appointing the fourth respondent as Registrar (Evaluation) of the Karnataka State Open University, Mysuru, in place of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has completed his Master’s in Kannada Literature in the year 1997, and he has a Ph.D. in Kannada in the year 2013. He has also published several books and he is a recipient of State and National awards. He was initially working as a guest lecturer at Zakir Hussain Degree College in Davanagere. Thereafter, he was appointed as Principal of S.G.Ramappa PU College, Gandhinagar, Davanagere and he was promoted as Professor under CAS by an order dated 19.04.2025 (Annexure-B). Thereafter, he was appointed as Registrar (Evaluation) to the third respondent – University, by order dated 02.03.2024 produced as Annexure-C. Immediately, thereafter, on 07.03.2024 he assumed charge as Registrar (Evaluation). When things stood thus, the second respondent issued the impugned notification on 19.05.2025, appointing the fourth respondent herein to the post of Registrar (Evaluation) of the third respondent – University, in place of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Sri Vivek Subbareddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, considering the petitioner’s qualification, he was appointed as Registrar (Evaluation) of the third respondent – University by the Chancellor on 02.03.2024, after consultation with the Vice Chancellor and the State Government. But, without any reason, the impugned notification has been issued, replacing the petitioner by the fourth respondent. This action of the second respondent is contrary to Section 13 of the Karnataka State Open University Act, 1982 (for short, ‘University Act’) and Clause 5(1) of the I Statute set out in the II Schedule of the University Act.
(ii) Secondly, in similar circumstances, this Court in the case of DR.K.JANARDHANAM vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA , REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 3 AIR Kant R 800, has held that at least it has to be continued for two years. Before the completion of two years, the petitioner has been replaced.
(iii) Thirdly, the action of the second respondent unceremoniously removing the petitioner without any reason is an arbitrary action and is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of DR.K.JANARDHANAM (supra) and the order passed by this Court in the case of DR.K.M.MAHADEVAN vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (W.P.No.8413/2024 disposed of on 18.06.2024).Hence, sought to allow the writ petition.
4. Per contra, Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent - Chancellor has raised the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, the petitioner was appointed as Registrar (Evaluation), by invoking Section 13 of the University Act. Under the Act, there is no fixed term. The appointment of the petitioner was until further orders. The Chancellor, by invoking the doctrine of pleasure, has replaced the petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right to continue in that post.
(ii) Secondly, the authority who has the power to appoint has the power to remove. Th
