Karnataka High Court

Prof. Y S Sidde Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 2023

Author: N S Sanjay Gowda

Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda

                                       -1-
                                                    NC: 2023:KHC:43740
                                               WP No. 22090 of 2023




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                    BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
                    WRIT PETITION No.22090 OF 2023 (S-RES)

            BETWEEN:

            1.  PROF.Y.S.SIDDE GOWDA,
                AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
                S/O SIDDE GOWDA, VICE-CHAIRMAN,
                KARNATAKA STATE HIGHER EDUCATION COUNCIL,
                R/AT No.30, PRASANNA KUMAR BLOCK,
                Y RAMACHANDRA ROAD,
                GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009.
                                                       ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI.R.SUBRAMANYA FOR SRI.VINAYAKA.B., ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally
                  REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
signed by         TO GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
KIRAN
KUMAR R           VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Location:         BENGALURU-560 001.
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
            2.    STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                  REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY TO THE
                  GOVERNMENT,
                  HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
                  (UNIVERSITIES-2),
                  M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
                  BENGALURU-560 001.

            3.    PROF. S.R.NIRANJANA,
                  AGE MAJOR,
                  S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
                              -2-
                                          NC: 2023:KHC:43740
                                      WP No. 22090 of 2023




     R/AT D.No.122,
     CHAMUNDESHWARI TEMPLE ROAD,
     D BLOCK, III STAGE,
     VIJAYANAGAR,
     MYSORE-570 030.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL,
   ALONG WITH SRI. HARISHA.A.S., AGA FOR R- 1 & R-2;
   SRI.S.G.BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION DATED:30.09.2023 BEARING No.E.No.ED 49
UBV 2023 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC.

     THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR   ORDERS    ON   11.10.2023, COMING  ON   FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING

                          ORDER

1. The Karnataka State Higher Education Council Act

was enacted in the year 2010 on the basis of a

recommendation that the State level planning and co-

ordination of higher education should be done through an

independent autonomous Council for higher education.

2. As a result, it was also recommended that the

existing University Board constituted under the Karnataka

State Universities Act was to be abolished and, in its place,

a State Council for Higher education was to be established.

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

3. Accepting this recommendation, the State enacted

the Karnataka State Higher Education Council Act, 2010

(hereinafter referred to as, "the Act", for brevity) with the

objective of forging a synergic relationship among the

Government, Universities, Academics and Experts through

the Government and Universities, and also between the

apex level regulatory Bodies. The objective of the Act was

to promote academic excellence and social justice by

obtaining academic input for policy formulation and

prospective planning while also ensuring autonomy and

better accountability of all institutions of higher education

in the State.

4. The Act mandates that the Government should

constitute a Council and this Council is required to consist

of 19 categories of members, out of which, 14 members

are to be ex-officio members, and the concerned Minister

in charge of Higher Education is to be its Chairman. The

Council is also required to have ten academicians of repute

from different Academic disciplines, of whom, two were

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

required to be women and two were required to belong to

the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, as nominated

by the Government.

5. The Vice-Chairman, under Section 3 of the Act, is

required to be an eminent educationist who was or had

been a Vice-Chancellor of the University or had been a

member of any apex body of higher education, and who

was required to be nominated by the Government.

6. Section 3(1)(ii) of the Act, which is relevant to the

instant case, reads as follows -

"An eminent educationist who is or has been the Vice-Chancellor of the University or member of any apex body of Higher education nominated by the Government."

7. It is, therefore, clear that while constituting the

Council, the State was obliged to nominate an eminent

educationist as a Vice-Chairman.

8. Section 4 prescribed the disqualifications for

nomination or for continuation as a member of the

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

Council. Section 5 indicated the powers and functions of

the Council, and Sections 6 to 8 provided for the

provisions relating to the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman

and the Executive Director. Section 9 prescribes the term

of the Council as being five years, while Section 10

provided for the manner in which the meetings of the

Council have to be conducted. Section 11 dealt with the

terms and conditions of the Vice-Chairman, the Executive

Director and other members, while Section 12 provided for

the manner in which there could be removal from

membership of the Council.

9. For the purpose of this Act, the provisions of Chapter

III would not be relevant and hence, they are not taken

into consideration.

10. The petitioner herein, by way of a Notification, was

appointed to the post of Vice-Chairman of the Karnataka

State Higher Education Council. The Notification under

which the petitioner was appointed reads as follows-

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

"GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA E-No:ED 49 UBV 2023 Karnataka Government Secretariat M.S. Building, Bangalore, dated:15.03.2023

NOTIFICATION

WHEREAS, Prof.B. Thimme Gowda, after his term of office, was continued as the Vice-Chairman of Karnataka State Higher Education Council on pro tem basis w.e.f. 8th August, 2022 till the regular incumbent is appointed, owing to the academic as well as administrative exigencies.

AND WHEREAS, it is considered expedient and necessary to make regular appointment to the post of Vice-Chairman in the interest of Karnataka State Higher Education Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of power conferred under section 3(1)(ii) of Karnataka State Higher Education Council Act, 2010, Prof.Y.S.Sidde Gowda, is appointed with immediate effect as the Vice-Chairman of the Karnataka State Higher Education Council.

The aforesaid appointment shall commence with effect from the date of assuming charge of the post of Vice-Chairman of the Karnataka State Higher Education Council and Prof.Y.S. Sidde Gowda shall, subject to the pleasure of the State Government hold the office thereof till 31.10.2027 on which he attains 70 years.

The emoluments and other terms and conditions of appointment of Prof.Y.S. Sidde Gowda as the Vice- Chairman, Karnataka State Higher Education Council shall be determined and issued as per rules.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka

Sd/-

Under Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department (Universities-2)"

11. A few factors are required to be noticed in this

Notification.

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

a. Firstly, the Notification states that it was

necessary to make a regular appointment to

the post of Vice-Chairman.

b. Secondly, the petitioner was appointed as the

Vice-Chairman (with immediate effect) in

exercise of powers conferred under Section

3(1)(ii) of the Act.

c. Thirdly, the appointment was stated to be

subject to the pleasure of the State

Government, to hold the Office thereof till

31.10.2027 (the date on which the petitioner

would attain the age of 70 years).

12. A plain reading of this Notification indicates that the

petitioner was appointed under S.3(1)(ii), but his

appointment was subject to the pleasure of the State

Government and he could hold the Office until the date of

attaining the age of 70 years, i.e., 31.10.2027.

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

13. It is the case of the petitioner that he had not been

nominated, but had been appointed as the Vice-Chairman

till 31.10.2027 and he could not, therefore, be removed by

applying the theory of 'doctrine of pleasure'.

14. It is his further case that Section 7 of the

Act which provides for the role of the Vice-Chairman,

categorically states that the Vice-Chairman should be

appointed by the Government, ordinarily for a term of five

years or until he attains the age of seventy years, and

from this, it would be clear that the term of office of a

Vice-Chairman was for a definite period of five years and

that hence, the question of the Vice-Chairman holding the

office subject to the pleasure of the Government would not

arise.

15. It is also contended that the terms and conditions of

service of the Vice-Chairman are clearly spelt out in

Section 11 and therefore, the question of removing the

petitioner before his term expired on 31.10.2027 would

not arise. It is contended that despite this legal position,

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

the State Government had proceeded to issue a

Notification on 30.09.2023, by which the petitioner was

removed from the post of Vice-Chairman and respondent

No.3 had been appointed in his place. It is submitted that

since the term stipulated in the order of appointment has

been reduced, as a result of which the petitioner has been

removed, the same would be illegal.

16. It is also contended that since the State has taken

the stand that the petitioner had been removed, it was

necessary that the removal should have been preceded by

an enquiry relating to a wilful omission or a refusal to

carry out the provisions of the Act and Regulations by the

petitioner. It is submitted that since there was no

allegation, much less an enquiry into the allegations of

wilful omission or refusal to carry out his functions as per

the provisions of the Act, his removal was also contrary to

Section 12(2) of the Act.

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance upon the judgments rendered in the cases of B.P.

Singhal1, B.K. Uday Kumar2and T.Suneel Kumar3.

18. The learned Advocate General, per contra, contended

that the Notification under which the petitioner was

appointed, itself, categorically stated that the appointment

of the petitioner was subject to the pleasure of the State

Government and the petitioner, having accepted such a

conditional appointment, cannot be permitted to now

contend that he had been appointed till 31.10.2027.

19. It is contended that Section 7(3) of the Act clearly

states that the Government could appoint the Vice-

Chairman ordinarily for a term of five years, which means

that the term of five years was not definite, and the

Government was empowered to reduce this period of five

years, if it thought fit, in respect of the term of the Vice-

Chairman.

B.P. Singhal v. Union of India and Another, (2010) 6 SCC 331.

B.K. Uday Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (2020)3 Kant LJ 100.

T.Suneel Kumar, IPS v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2013 KAR 4564.

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

20. It is contended that since the State Government had

appointed the petitioner till 31.10.2027 and made it clear

that it was subject to the pleasure of the State

Government, the State was well within its right to

dispense with the services of the petitioner as the Vice-

Chairman and appoint another Vice-Chairman of its choice.

It is contended that when a statute itself categorically

states that a non-official member could hold the Office,

subject to the pleasure of the Government, it was

impermissible for the petitioner to contend that he had a

right to hold the office till 31.10.2027.

21. The learned Advocate General placed reliance on the

judgments rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in

W.A. No.669/2022 which confirmed the order passed in

W.P. No.7912/2022 and also the decision rendered by

another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

A.M. Bhaskar4. It is contended that the judgments relied

upon by the petitioner of the Apex Court had been

Sri.A.M.Bhaskar and Others vs. The State of Karnataka, Department of Education (Universities), rep., by the Chief Secretary and Others, ILR 2013 KAR 4182

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

considered and distinguished by the Division Bench of this

Court, and therefore, the judgments relied upon by the

petitioner would be of no avail.

22. In light of the submissions made above, the principal

question which arises for consideration in this petition is:

"Whether the State Government was entitled to remove the petitioner from the post of Vice-Chairman and appoint respondent No.3 in his place?"

23. As already noticed above, the Act provides for

constitution of the Council and Section 3(1)(ii) states that

an eminent educationist who is or has been a Vice-

Chancellor OR a member of any apex body of higher

education, could be nominated by the Government as the

Vice-Chairman.

24. It is, thus, clear that according to Section 3(1)(ii) of

the Act, the Vice-Chairman could be nominated by the

Government while constituting the Council under Section

3. For the purposes of this petition, use of the term

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

"nominated" in Section 3 (1) (ii) is required to be noticed

and borne in mind.

25. Section 7, which deals with the role of the Vice-

Chairman and the mode of appointment of the Vice-

Chairman originally (prior to its amendment) reads as

follows-

"7. The Vice-Chairman.- (1) The Vice- Chairman shall preside over the meetings of the Council or the Executive Committee in the absence of the Chairman.

(2) The Vice-Chairman shall exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be prescribed.

(3) The Vice- Chairman or any member other than an ex-officio member shall be appointed by the Government ordinarily for a term of five years and shall not be eligible for reappointment for a second term:

Provided that a person who has not attained the age of seventy years shall be eligible to be appointed as the Vice-Chairman."

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

26. As could be seen from the above, Section 7 of the

Act empowers the Government to appoint a Vice-Chairman

while Section 3 (1)(ii) states that the Government could

nominate an eminent educationist as the Vice Chairman.

27. Another significant factor that is required to be

noticed in Section 7 is that the following two categories of

persons can be appointed as a Vice Chairman i.e.,

a. Vice Chairman; or

b. any member other than an ex-officio member.

28. Since Section 3(1)(ii) states that the Vice-Chairman

was to be nominated at the time of constituting a Council,

it becomes rather clear that the person so nominated as

Vice-Chairman under Section 3(1)(ii) could, thereafter, be

appointed as the Vice-Chairman under Section 7(3). This

therefore implies that while constituting the Chairman, a

nomination was contemplated and thereafter a regular

appointment including the appointment of a nominated

Vice-Chairman was permissible.

- 15 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

29. Section 7(3) also indicates that apart from appointing

the already nominated Vice-Chairman as the Vice-

Chairman, the Government is also empowered to appoint

any member of the Council who is not an ex-officio

member, as a Vice-Chairman. It is, therefore, clear that

under Section 7(3), apart from the Vice-Chairman

[nominated under S. 3 (1) (ii)], one of the members of the

Council (other than an ex-officio member) could be

appointed as the Vice-Chairman.

30. However, in this case, the Notification by which the

petitioner was appointed states that the appointment of

the petitioner as the Vice-Chairman was under Section

3(1)(ii) of the Act. Since the State has expressed that it

was exercising the power under Section 3 (1) (ii) of the

Act in the Notification, the State Government was basically

nominating the petitioner as the Vice-Chairman, though

the word "appointed" has been used in the Notification.

31. If it was intent of the Government to appoint the

petitioner under Section 7(3) of the Act, the State

- 16 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

Government would not have stated in the Notification that

it was appointing the petitioner in exercise of the powers

conferred under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Act. It is, therefore,

clear that the petitioner had essentially been nominated

under Section 3(1)(ii) and had not really been appointed

under Section 7(3) of the Act.

32. Section 7(3) of the Act was amended, in 2017 and

Section 7 (as amended) reads as follows-

"7. The Vice-Chairman.- 5[(1) The Vice-Chairman shall preside over the meeting of the Executive Committee. The Vice-Chairman in absence of the Chairman shall also preside over the meetings of the Council with permission of the Chairman.] (2) The Vice-Chairman shall exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be prescribed.

[(3) The Vice-Chairman or any other member other than an ex-officio member or any other person subject to sections 3 and 4 is deemed fit for the post shall be appointed by the Government ordinarily for a term of five years or until he attains the age of seventy

Substituted by Act 42 of 2017 w.e.f. 05.09.2017.

Ibid.

- 17 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

years whichever is earlier and he shall not be eligible for reappointment for a second term.] Provided that a person who has not attained the age of seventy years shall be eligible to be appointed as the Vice-Chairman."

33. On a comparison of the original (unamended) Section

7(3) and the amended Section 7(3), it is noticed that the

original provision provided only for the Vice-Chairman or

any other member other than an ex-officio member to be

appointed by the Government, while the substituted

provision, in addition, also provided for any other person

that the Government deemed fit could be appointed,

subject to Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Thus, with effect

from 05.09.2017 (vide the Amendment Act of 2017) even

a person who was not a member of the Council under

Section 3 could be appointed as the Vice-Chairman for a

term of five years.

34. This indicates that under the amended provision,

apart from the two categories of persons, namely, the

Vice-Chairman who had been nominated under Section

- 18 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

3(1)(ii) and any other member of the Council, the

Government, in addition, could appoint any other person

who was not disqualified under Sections 3 and 4, and who

was deemed fit as the Vice Chairman. Thus, from 2017, a

person who was not a member of the Council could also be

appointed as the Vice-Chairman by the Government.

35. It is to be stated here that if the Vice-Chairman

nominated under Section 3(1)(ii) is considered to be the

Vice-Chairman appointed under Section 7(3), it would

result in a rather abnormal situation. To put it differently,

if the Vice-Chairman was already in place by way of a

nomination under Section 3(1)(ii), the question of

appointing that Vice-Chairman under Section 7(3) would

not arise.

36. The fact that Section 7(3) states that the Vice

Chairman can also be appointed as Vice Chairman, the

only inference that can be drawn is that the person who

was already nominated by the Government while

constituting the Council [under S. 3 (1) (ii)] could also be

- 19 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

appointed and once such an appointment is made, the

terms of the appointment as stated in Section 7 (3) i.e.,

for five years or until he attains the age of 70 years would

be applicable.

37. The matter can also be viewed from a different

angle. If the nomination under Section 3(1)(ii) and 7(3)

are the same, the term "Vice-Chairman" would not have

found a place in Section 7(3). In other words, when a

person is already occupying the office of the Vice-

Chairman by virtue of a nomination made under Section

3(1)(ii), there was no question of the Vice-Chairman once

again being appointed under Section 7(3). The fact that

Section 7(3) contemplates the appointment of Vice-

Chairman for a term of five years indicates that merely

because a person is nominated under Section 3(1)(ii), that

does not automatically translate into an appointment as

contemplated under Section 7(3). Unless a specific order

of appointment in terms of Section 7(3) has been made,

- 20 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

the Vice-Chairman would only be a person nominated by

the Government under Section 3.

38. However, even assuming that the petitioner was

appointed under Section 7(3), the next question that

would arise is whether the petitioner would still have the

statutory right to hold Office till 31.10.2027.

39. Section 11 of the Act details the terms and conditions

of the Vice-Chairman, the Executive Director and the

members. It is to be noticed that apart from these three

posts [including that of the Vice-Chairman nominated

under Section 3(1)(ii)] and 10 Academicians of repute who

are nominated by the Government, all the other members

of the Council are entitled to become members by virtue of

the Office that they hold. In other words, apart from the

Vice-Chairman and 10 Academicians, all the other

members are official members. The Executive Director is

to be appointed by the Government and such appointee

could either be a serving or retired Senior Administrative

Officer not below the rank of a Principal Secretary. It is,

- 21 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

thus, clear that it is only the Vice-Chairman and the 10

Academicians mentioned above who can be construed as

non-official members.

40. Section 11(4) would be relevant for the purpose of

this case and the same reads as follows -

"11(4) Subject to the pleasure of the Government, a non-official member shall hold the office for a term of five years or till the expiry of the term of the body represented by him whichever is earlier."

41. Sub-section (4) starts with the phrase "subject to the

pleasure of the Government" and this clearly indicates that

a non-official member of the Council would be entitled to

hold the Office for a term of five years or till the expiry of

the term of the body represented by him, whichever is

earlier.

42. It is to be borne in mind that official members will

continue to be the members of the Council by virtue of the

office that they hold and there is therefore no question of

them being members at the pleasure of the Government.

- 22 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

43. What can be gathered from this is that a specific

provision is made only in respect of the non-official

members of the Council regarding their tenure and their

right to be a part of the Council. Since Sub-section (4)

categorically states that non-official members can hold

their office for a term of five years, subject to the pleasure

of the Government, it is clear that even if a person is

appointed to be a member of the Council and he happens

to be a non-official member, his right to hold the office

would be subject to the pleasure of the Government.

44. Thus, even if it is assumed that the petitioner was

appointed by the Government under Section 7 (3), by

virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 11, the petitioner

(being a non-official member) can hold the Office subject

to the pleasure of the Government even if the statutory

provision prescribes the period of tenure as 5 years.

45. Since, as per the discussion made above and as

could also be seen from the Notification that the petitioner

was nominated under Section 3(1)(ii) and was not

- 23 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

appointed as provided under Section 7(3), the petitioner

would not have a right to hold the Office for a period of 5

years or until 31.10.2027, if he does not have the

confidence of the Government.

46. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner was

appointed under Section 7(3), as Section 11(4) expressly

provides for a non-official member's appointment to hold

office would be subject to the pleasure of the Government,

it is manifestly clear the petitioner would not have a right

to hold the office of the Vice Chairman if he has lost the

confidence of the Government.

47. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sought

to place reliance on the judgment rendered in B.P.

Singhal (supra), B.K. Uday Kumar (supra) and T.

Suneel Kumar (supra) to contend that even if it is

assumed that the theory of doctrine of pleasure is

attracted in the case of the petitioner's appointment,

nevertheless, the State is required to show compelling

reasons for renewing the petitioner and since no such

- 24 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

reason is put forth, the order passed by the State

Government cannot be sustainable. It is highlighted that

removal of a nominated person, even at the pleasure of

the Government, would be subject to judicial review and

the same cannot be done in an arbitrary or capricious

manner. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.

No.669/2022 has held as follows-

"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

- 25 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

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 General 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 does not withdraw its

- 26 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

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."

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. 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 learned Single Judge was fully justified in dismissing the writ petition and we find no reason to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed."

48. In light of the fact that the Notification which is relied

upon by petitioner only stated that he had been appointed

under Section 3(1)(ii), thereby meaning that he was not

appointed under Section 7(3) and since he has also not

- 27 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43740

been subsequently appointed under Section 7(3), it is

clear that the judgments upon which reliance is placed i.e.,

B.P.Singhal (supra) and B.K.Uday Kumar (supra), as

distinguished by the Division Bench, would squarely apply.

The Division Bench has, in fact, gone on to state that in

the case of nomination, the nominating authority would