Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ASHOK S.KINAGI
SRI NAVEEN HERALD SIMONS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for seeking writ petition (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contestation of nominations and statutory provisions (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments from counsels and rule of law (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. power of state regarding nominations and removals (Para 7 , 9) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:
“a. Quash the impugned notification dated 24-5-2023 bearing No. MED 355 MSF 2022 issued by the Respondent NO. 2 produced as Annexure-E by issue of writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order or directions.
b. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the present case including an order for costs may kindly be passed in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:
2.1. The petitioners were nominated as Senate Members to the Nursing Council for 3 years, on 28.03.2023. After the assembly elections, the new Government which has come into power, issued a common notification dated 22.05.2023 stating that, the nominations to the post of President/Director/Members made by the previous Government for instrumentalities of the State
Nominations under the Karnataka Nurses Act can be revoked at the Government's discretion and do not confer statutory tenure requiring adherence to natural justice for termination.
The court determined that a nominated member's removal must adhere to the procedural safeguards outlined in the Cantonments Act, and arbitrary substitution without adherence to these processes is ill....
Nominated members can be removed by the government without notice, as their appointment is based on political considerations and the doctrine of pleasure.
Nominated members of statutory bodies cannot be unilaterally removed by the nominating authority without a directive from a higher authority, ensuring continuity in representation.
“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.
"Doctrine of Pleasure" has its genesis under common law - A public servant could be dismissed from service by Crown at its pleasure.
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.
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
