Karnataka High Court

Dr Govindaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2022

Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty

                           1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                        PRESENT

              THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                  ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

        WRIT APPEAL NO.669/2022(GM-RES)


BETWEEN:

1.     DR. GOVINDARAJU
       S/O THIMMIAH
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
       R/AT NO.56, 8TH MAIN ROAD
       8TH CROSS, JNANAJYOTHINAGAR
       SAMYUKTHA KARNATAKA EXTENSION
       BENGALURU - 560 056.

2.     SRI PREM SOHANLAL
       S/O SOHANLAL G
       AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
       R/AT GOLECH, 1ST FLOOR
       NO.17, 1ST CROSS
       SRIRAMAPURAM EXTENSION
       SHESHADRIPURAM
       BENGALURU - 560 020.               ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL, ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
       EDUCATION (UNIVERSITES)
       M.S. BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR
                               2

       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     THE REGISTRAR
       BANGALORE UNVERSITY
       GNANGA BHARATHI
       BENGALURU - 560 056.

3.     DR. C.R. MAHESH
       S/O NOT KNOWN
       MAJOR
       ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
       INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING
       AND MANAGEMENT, DR. AMBEDKAR
       ISTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
       BENGALURU -560 056.

4.     DR. ANILKUMAR EESO
       S/O NOT KNOWN
       MAJOR
       NO.119 WEST, TRINITY ACRES
       AND WOODS, SARJAPURA
       MAIN ROAD, HSR SECTOR 1
       BENGALURU - 560 102.              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI   R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG A/W
    SRI   S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-1;
    SRI   B. RAMESH, ADV., FOR R-2;
    SRI   SUNIL RAO, ADV., FOR
    SRI   T. SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADV., FOR C/R-3)

       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.7912/2022 (GM-RES)
DATED 20/07/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION IN WP NO.7912/2022 (GM-RES) FILED BY THE
APPELLANTS.


       THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS   DAY,   VISHWAJITH      SHETTY   J.,   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                 3



                         JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is filed by the unsuccessful

petitioners challenging the order dated 20.07.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in

W.P.No.7912/2022.

2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the

parties and also perused the material on record.

3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated

are, the appellants herein were nominated as syndicate

members of the Bangalore University and the term of

their office was for a period of three years or until further

orders, whichever is earlier. Even before the expiry of the

three years period, the State Government issued a

Notification dated 07.04.2022 withdrawing the

nomination of the appellants in exercise of its powers

under Section 39(1) of the Karnataka State Universities

Act, 2000 (for short, 'the Act of 2000'), and nominated

respondent nos.3 & 4 in place of the appellants.

Consequent to the withdrawal of the nomination, the

University issued Notification dated 07.04.2022 relieving

the appellants as its syndicate members. Challenging the

aforesaid two Notifications dated 07.04.2022, the

appellants had filed W.P.No.7912/2022 before this Court,

which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the

order impugned. Being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners in the writ petition have preferred this appeal.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellants submits that the impugned notification of the

State is contrary to Sections 39(1) & (3) of the Act of

2000. He also submits that no reasons have been

assigned for withdrawing the nominations of the

appellants as syndicate members of the University before

completion of their term. In support of his argument, he

has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of B.P.SINGHAL VS UNION OF INDIA &

ANOTHER1 and the decision of the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of B.K.UDAY KUMAR VS THE STATE OF

KARNATAKA & OTHERS (W.A.No.3843/2019 disposed of

on 04.01.2020).

(2010)6 SCC 331

5. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for respondent no.1-State submits that the

appellants are nominated members of the syndicate and

they do not have a fixed tenure of office. He submits that

the nominated members can hold the office during the

pleasure of the nominating authority and no reasons are

required to be assigned for removing the nominated

members. He submits that the appointing authority has

also got the power to remove the appointed members.

He further submits that the judgments in B.P.Singhal's

case and B.K.Uday Kumar's case supra would not be

applicable to the facts of the present case as the said

judgments are rendered in the cases of appointment and

not nomination. In support of his argument, he has

placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of

this Court in W.A.No.617/2021 and connected cases

disposed of on 25.09.2021 (The State of Karnataka Vs

Dr. Deepthi Bhava & Others).

6. It is not in dispute that the appellants have been

nominated by respondent no.1 as the syndicate members

of respondent no.2-University. Section 39(1) of the Act of

2000 provides that any member nominated under the Act

of 2000, shall hold the office during the pleasure of the

nominating authority concerned. Section 39(1) of the Act

of 2000 reads as under:

"39. Restriction of holding the membership of the authorities.- (1) Any member nominated to any of the authorities under this Act shall hold office during the pleasure of the nominating authority concerned."

7. An identical issue was considered by the Division

Bench of this Court in W.A.No.617/2021 and at

paragraphs 13 & 14, it has been observed as under:

"13. It is well settled legal proposition that rights created by a statute can also be limited or curtailed by such statute and in the absence of some other competing right under the statute or under the Constitution of India, a right to the post cannot be claimed. It is equally well settled legal proposition that doctrine of pleasure can be impliedly read in a provision and once the doctrine of pleasure is applicable, neither the principles of natural justice nor question of giving an opportunity before removal would arise. (See: 'KRISHNA S/o BULAJI BORATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS' (2001) 2 SCC

441).

14. It is pertinent to note that taking into account the fact that appellants have been nominated to the post in question and they do not have any substantive right to hold the post, and in the absence of any minimum tenure being prescribed in Section 31, the doctrine of pleasure can be impliedly read into Sections 21 and 24 of the Act. In the absence of any specific provision in the Act for removal of the nominated members prior to reconstitution of Senate or Syndicate, the provisions of Sections 21 and 24 of the Act have to be read along with Sections 16 and 21 of the Genera Clauses Act, 1897. Therefore, the State Government has power to recall the nominations of persons, nominated to the Senate and Syndicate even before reconstitution of Senate or Syndicate in its entirety."

8. In the case of A.M.BHASKAR & OTHERS VS THE

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(UNIVERSITIES), REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY &

OTHERS2, this Court in paragraph 53 has observed as

under:

"53. The petitioners have no legally vested right to demand that they be continued as the members of the Syndicate for fixed period of three years. The petitioners are neither elected nor appointed. They are nominated and they would hold the office so long as the Government

ILR 2013 KAR 4182

does not withdraw its pleasure. The Apex Court in the case of Om Narain Agarwal (supra) has held that the nominated members of a municipal board fall in a different class and that therefore they cannot claim equality with the elected members. The Apex Court has negatived the submission that there would be a constant fear of removal at the will of the State Government and that it would demoralize the nominated members in the discharge of their duties."

9. The judgments in B.P.Singhal's case and

B.K.Uday Kumar's case supra have been rendered in

cases of appointment and not nomination, and therefore,

as rightly contended by the learned Additional Advocate

General, the same cannot be made applicable to the

instant case.

10. In the case of nomination, there is no such

prescribed process and the nomination would be done at

the pleasure of the nominated authority, and therefore,

the nominating authority would also have the power to

remove the nominee at its pleasure. Under the

circumstances, we are of the considered view that the