Karnataka High Court
Dr. Shobha S Nissimgoudar vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
WA No. 635 of 2024
C/W WA No. 714 of 2024
WA No. 870 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2024 (GM-RES) C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 714 OF 2024 (GM-RES) AND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 870 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
IN W.A. NO. 635 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1. DR. VENUGOPAL
MBBS, MS. (GEN. SURGERY)
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
PAVAN HOSPITAL
Digitally SHRINIVASPURA
signed by KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 135
AMBIKA H B
Location: 2. DR. H J JAISKRISHNA
High Court MDS
of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.293, JAINILAYA
19TH MAIN, 6TH BLOCK
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. ABHISHEK A. HAPPALI, ADVOCATE
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
WA No. 635 of 2024
C/W WA No. 714 of 2024
WA No. 870 of 2024
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(MEDICAL EDUCATION)
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRA
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 560 041
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG
WITH SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
SRI MADHUSUDAN R. NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 05.04.2024 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P NO. 10837/2023 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION IN ITS
ENTIRETY INSOFAR AS THE APPELLANTS ARE CONCERNED, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN W.A. NO. 714 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1. DR. KRANTI KIRAN, MBBS, MS, DNB, MCH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
WA No. 635 of 2024
C/W WA No. 714 of 2024
WA No. 870 of 2024
SRI BALAJI INSTITUTE OF
NEURO SCIENCES AND TRAUMA
UNAKAL, HOSUR ROAD
VIDHYA NAGAR
HUBBALLI - 580 021
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANDEEP S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(MEDICAL EDUCATION)
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 560 041
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG
WITH SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
SRI MADHUSUDAN R. NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.
10837/2023 DATE 05.04.2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
WA No. 635 of 2024
C/W WA No. 714 of 2024
WA No. 870 of 2024
WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN W.A. NO. 870 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1. DR. SHOBHA S NISSIMGOUDAR
BAMS, PGDHA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDES AT MANNAGI GRAMA
SAVANUR TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT - 518 202
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG
WITH SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(MEDICAL EDUCATION)
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 041
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG
WITH SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
WA No. 635 of 2024
C/W WA No. 714 of 2024
WA No. 870 of 2024
SRI MADHUSUDAN R. NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 05/04/2024 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.10837/2023 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION IN ITS
ENTIRETY INSOFAR AS THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNED.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N.V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned Senior Advocate Sri K.N. Phanindra assisted
by learned advocate Smt. Vaishali Hegde for the appellants in Writ
Appeal Nos.635 of 2024, learned Advocate Sri Sandeep S. Patil for
the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 714 of 2024 and learned Senior
Advocate Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi assisted by Advocate
Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar for the appellant in Writ Appeal
No. 870 of 2024, learned Advocate General Sri K. Shashikiran
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
Shetty along with learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.
Niloufer Akbar for respondent No.1 and learned Senior Advocate Sri
Madhusudan R. Naik assisted by learned advocate Smt. Farah
Fathima for respondent No.2.
2. The three writ appeals that is Writ Appeal Nos.635 of 2024,
714 of 2024 and 870 of 2024 arise out of common judgment and
order dated 05.04.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition Nos.10837 of 2023 and 10994 of 2023. The petitions came
to be dismissed by learned Single Judge.
2.1 The facts in both the petitions were similar and the issue
involved identical. Noticing the basic facts from Writ Petition
No.10837 of 2023, what was prayed by the petitioners was to set
aside the Notification dated 25.05.2023 issued by respondent No.1-
State and to consider the representation dated 23.05.2023 filed by
the petitioners in light of Sections 31 and 55 of the Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences Act, 1994.
2.2 By the said Notification dated 25.05.2023 impugned in the
petition, earlier Notifications dated 13.12.2022 and 06.02.2023
came to be annulled. The net result was that the nomination of the
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
petitioners as members of the syndicate of the University was
cancelled.
2.3 In the other petition from which Writ Appeal No.870 of 2024
arose, the petitioner was nominated as Chairman of the Central
Relief Committee under the Karnataka Prohibition of Beggary Act,
1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Beggary Act') for a period of
three years under the Notification dated 26.07.2022. By virtue of
the impugned notification, cancelling the earlier notification, the
petitioner ceased to be the Chairman of the Committee from the
date of notification.
2.4 In both the cases, this Court granted interim order suspending
the impugned Notification. The respective petitioners continued as
members of the Syndicate and the Chairman of the Central Relief
Committee, respectively till date.
3. Setting out the facts with some details, the appellants of Writ
Appeal No.635 of 2024, the petitioners of Writ Petition No.10837 of
2023 came to be nominated as members of the Syndicate of Rajiv
Gandhi University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as
'Rajiv Gandhi University') on 13.12.2022 which was under Section
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
24 (1) (xii) of the Rajiv Gandhi University Act. It was mentioned in
the notification that the term of the appointees would be "with
immediate effect and till further three years or till further government
orders, whichever is earlier".
3.1 A corrigendum came to be issued on 06.02.2023, whereby the
words "or further government orders, whichever is earlier" came to
be deleted. The Revised Notification dated 07.02.2023 was issued
by the Rajiv Gandhi University mentioning that the term of the office
of the petitioners-members shall be for a period of three years with
effect from 13.12.2022.
3.2 It is thereafter that the impugned Notification dated
25.05.2023 was issued cancelling the nominations of the appellants-
petitioners with effect from 24.05.2023 on the ground of "in the
interest of public and administration of the University". It was
claimed by the petitioners that the Hon'ble Chief Minister had issued
tippani dated 22.05.2023 directing cancellation of all nominations,
on account of which the Notification dated 25.05.2023 was issued.
3.3 In the context of above premise of facts and pleadings, the
writ petition was filed challenging the impugned Notification dated
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
25.05.2023, whereby as stated above, the membership of the
petitioners to the senate of the University was curtailed and they
were ceased to be members from the date of the notification.
Learned Single Judge passed interim order in favour of the
petitioners placing the impugned Notification under suspension.
3.4 The facts of the other petition-appeal operate on similar lines.
In other words, in both the cases, the appointment of the members
or the Chairman, as the case may be, which was for three years
came to be curtailed by issuing the Notification and the initial
appointment was withdrawn.
4. While dismissing Writ Petition No.10994 of 2023 wherein the
petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Central Relief
Committee, learned Single Judge observed thus:
"... The nomination of the petitioner in
W.P.No.10994 of 2023 to the Central Relief
Committee is subject to pleasure of the State
Government, as ordained in the statute itself.
Therefore, the petitioner therein, on the score that
he has become a Chairman does not have any
right to so continue, on the score that the Chairman
is an appointment and the members are
nominated. The Chairman is appointed from out of
the nominees. Therefore, the chairman cannot
derive a higher right contending that it is an
appointment and a member is a nominee. He is a
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
nominee, appointed as a Chairman, amongst the
nominees. Therefore, the birthmark of the
petitioner as a nominee does not get effaced
merely because he is anointed as the Chairman.
4.1 This petitioner-appellant was appointed as Chairman of the
Central Relief Committee under the Beggary Act, which Committee
is constituted under Section 4 of the Beggary Act. Section 4, in its
sub-section (1) provides that Government may by notification
constitute a Central Relief Committee. As per sub-section (2), the
Committee shall consist of members, who would be the Secretary to
the Government, Social Welfare and Labour Department, the
Director of the Social Welfare, the Secretary, Finance Department
and 4 non-official members nominated by the government. It is
contemplated that the Government may appoint one of the
Members of the Committee as its Chairman and appoint a Secretary
who may or who may not be a member of the Committee.
4.2 The petitioner's appointment was under category (d), namely
he was a Chairman out of 4 non-official members nominated by the
Government. What is to be noticed is that Sub-section (3) of
Section 4 of the Beggary Act provides that "subject to pleasure of
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
the State Government, the term of the office of the non-official
members shall be for a period of three years".
4.3 The above provision expressly incorporates the doctrine of
pleasure. The reasoning supplied by learned Single Judge to hold
that the petitioner did not have any right to continue, that he was a
Chairman appointed amongst the nominated members and that the
State was within its right to discontinue the petitioner invoking the
doctrine of pleasure.
5. This takes the Court to the controversy in Writ Petition
No.10837 of 2023, the appellants whereof were nominated as the
members of the Syndicate of the Rajiv Gandhi University under
Section 24(1)(xii) of the Rajiv Gandhi University Act. The said sub-
clause contemplates that six persons shall be nominated by the
State Government from amongst the eminent personalities in the
field of Health Science.
6. Assailing the impugned notification, grounds were raised by
learned Senior Advocate for the appellants. It was firstly contented
that the original Notification dated 13.12.2022 indicated membership
of the senate to be of three years. Therefore, curtailment of the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
period of membership was not permissible at the pleasure of the
appointing authority. It was next submitted that even otherwise by
the Corrigendum dated 06.02.2023, the words "or further
Government orders, whichever is earlier" were omitted from the
original notification, implying thereby that initially intention was there
to apply the doctrine of pleasure, but the same was withdrawn.
6.1 It was thirdly submitted that the appellants could not be
removed only for the reason that there was a change in the political
set up. It was fourthly submitted that, in any view, the doctrine of
pleasure is not absolute and it does not have unrestricted
application. Even in applying the doctrine of pleasure, the
withdrawal of nomination could not have been done at sweet will of
the State Government and that the abrupt withdrawal of nomination
was arbitrary.
6.2 In support of the statement that the doctrine of pleasure could
not be applied in whims, the decision of the Supreme Court in B.P.
Singhal Vs. Union of India and another [(2010) 6 SCC 331] for its
paragraphs 21 to 24, 34 and 82 was pressed into service. Also
relied on was the decision of this Court in B.K. Uday Kumar Vs.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
State of Karnataka, By its Principal Secretary to Government
and others [(2020) SCC OnLine Kar 43 relying on paragraphs 10
to 14 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Dnyaneshwar
Digamber Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2016 (1)
Mh.L.J. 602] for its paragraphs 7 to 9.
6.3 It was finally submitted that Section 31 of the Rajiv Gandhi
University Act stipulates that the members of the Syndicate shall
hold the office up to the date of next constitution of the body of
Senate. It was therefore submitted that as the Senate is not
constituted, the appellants-petitioners are entitled to continue as
nominated members in the Senate until and unless the Senate is
constituted.
6.4 On the other hand, learned Advocate General for the State as
well as Senior Advocate for the University highlighted that the
membership of the appellants to the Senate was by virtue of
nomination. Relying on the reasoning of the Single Judge, it was
further submitted that the idea of nomination would suggest that the
nominee had no right to continue. It was contended that the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
nomination was bound by doctrine of pleasure and that it was open
for the State Government to withdraw the nomination.
6.5 It was submitted on the basis of the decision of this Court in
The State of Karnataka, Dept. of Health and Family Welfare
(Medical Education) and others Vs. Dr. Deepthi Bhava and
others, which was Writ Appeal No.617 of 2021 decided on
25.09.2021 that a nominated member has no vested right to the
post. It was submitted that in absence of minimum tenure
prescribed under Section 31 of the Rajiv Gandhi University Act, the
doctrine of pleasure has to be read into.
6.6 A decision of the Supreme Court in Krishna S/o Bulaji
Borate Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [(2001) 2 SCC 441]
was pressed into service to submit that the doctrine of pleasure is
inherent in the very nature of nominated decisions. The doctrine
may be stated expressly or it is implied. However, in both the
situations, it was submitted, it has equal force.
6.7 While advancing the above submissions, it was further
contended on behalf of the respondents that in any case as per
Section 31 of the Rajiv Gandhi University Act, the term of the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
Senate is provided to be three years from the date of its constitution.
It was submitted that three years got over on 15.06.2024 and that
the appellants who are continued as members by virtue of the
interim order of this Court have exhausted the period of three years
as members of the Senate. It was submitted that when the term of
the Senate itself is three years and which has expired, the
petitioners, in any case, cannot continue as members.
7. Admittedly, the term of three years for the Syndicate of the
University is over. The appellants have continued to hold the
position of the members of the Senate by virtue of the interim order
which is operated since 24.04.2024. In this view, the ground
originally raised to challenge the Notification, whereby the term of
the appellants-petitioners as members was curtailed before
completion of three years and further in that light whether the
doctrine of pleasure was applicable and if applicable it was rightly
applied, whether it was properly invoked or not and the related
aspects, pale into backdrop and may not require to be adjudicated.
7.1 As the three years period is over and the petitioners have
enjoyed their term by virtue of operation of interim order for the said
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
total period, the Court is not inclined to and dissuades itself to go
into the merits of the impugned Notification and in respect of the
grounds relating to justification of invocation of or applicability or
otherwise of the doctrine of pleasure, as it will be an academic
exercise. It is trite that the Court would not undertake academic
adjudication. Therefore, no opinion in that regard is expressed,
leaving those issues to be agitated and decided in an appropriate
case.
7.2 The issue in the forefront now is where the three years term of
the Syndicate is over, whether the petitioners are entitled to
continue beyond the term of the body itself of which they are the
nominated members.
7.3 In order to examine the aforesaid aspect-whether the
appellants are entitled to continue any further as members of the
Syndicate, the relevant provisions of the Rajiv Gandhi University Act
may be visited with. Section 20 of the Rajiv Gandhi University Act
mentions the Authorities of the University which includes the
Syndicate. Section 24 was that the Syndicate shall consist of the
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
members mentioned therein. In all, 12 categories of members are
mentioned.
7.4 The petitioners' nomination comes under clause (xii) which
provides that six persons shall be nominated by the State
Government from amongst the eminent personalities in the field of
Health Sciences which would again consists of the categories
mentioned in (i) to (iii). The nominations of the petitioners, as
stated, was under the aforesaid provision.
7.5 Thus, the constitution of the Syndicate as provided for under
Section 24 of the Rajiv Gandhi University Act consists of total 24
members out of which 8 are ex-officio, 3 members are elected and
12 are nominated members.
7.6 Section 31 of the Rajiv Gandhi University Act deals with the
term of the office of the members of the Syndicate. The said section
is extracted herein,
"31. Term of office of the members of Senate,
Syndicate and Academic Council:- Save as
otherwise provided in this Act the Senate,
Syndicate and Academic Council shall be
reconstituted at or about same time every three
years, and members of the authorities shall except
in the case of ex-officio members hold office as
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
members thereof up to the date of next
reconstitution:
Provided that no person nominated or
elected to any of the authorities specified in section
20 shall hold office for more than two consecutive
terms in such authority."
7.6.1 The above provision contemplates that Senate/Syndicate/
Academic Council shall be constituted at or about the same time
every three years. It is further provided that the members of the
authorities shall except in the case of ex-officio members hold office
as members up to the date of next reconstitution.
7.6.2 Section 56 of the Rajiv Gandhi University Act may also be
mentioned which deals with the filling up of casual vacancies to
provide that such vacancies amongst the members other than ex-
officio may be filled in once they arise and that the persons
nominated to a casual vacancy shall be a member of such body for
the residue of the term for which the persons in whose place he is
nominated would have been a member. The Proviso to the section
says that that if the casual vacancy occurs within six months before
the date of the expiry of the term of the members, the casual
vacancy shall not be filled in. The indication from this Section is that
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
member who may enter the body of Syndicate upon arising of a
casual vacancy, will continue as member till the expiry of the term of
the body.
7.7 What necessarily emanated from the above provisions of the
Rajiv Gandhi University Act, more particularly, Section 31 read with
Section 56 of the Act is that the member of the Senate shall not
continue beyond the term of the Senate. The membership of
nominated members or other members except ex-officio members
would be co-terminus with the tenure of the Syndicate. Once the
three years period is over, membership of nominated member would
come to an end automatically and the Syndicate shall be
reconstituted. The Syndicate is a permanent body.
8. The decision of the Division Bench in Deepthi Bhava (supra)
stands in fortification to the above reading of the provisions relating
to the term of the Syndicate and the co-terminus nature of the
membership of the Syndicate. It was observed by the Division
Bench that Sections 21 and 24 deal with the constitution of the
Senate and Syndicate of the University.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
8.1 The Division Bench after discussing the provisions of Sections
21 and 24 observed and held thus in paragraph 10,
"Section 31 of the Act provides that Senate,
Syndicate and Academic Council shall be
reconstituted at or about the same time every three
years and members of the authorities shall, except
in case of ex-officio members, hold office as
members thereof up to the date of next
reconstitution. Thus, on plain reading of Section 31,
it is evident that the same provides that Senate,
Syndicate and Academic Council shall be
reconstituted at or about the same time every three
years. Section 31 further provides that authorities
except ex-officio members shall hold office up to the
date of next reconstitution. In other words, the
members of the authorities have a right to continue
in office only up to the date of next reconstitution
and the reconstitution Senate, Syndicate and the
Academic Council has to take place in three years."
8.2 As per the details furnished to the Court, the first Syndicate of
the Rajiv Gandhi University was constituted by the Notification dated
31.05.1997 for a period from 31.05.1997 to 30.05.2000. Thereafter,
every three years the Senate was constituted. Lastly, it was the 9th
Syndicate which was constituted on 16.06.2021 for a period of three
years, which was over on 15.06.2024.
8.3 The Syndicate as a body has permanent status. Its tenure is
mandated by statutory provision of Section 31 of the Rajiv Gandhi
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
University Act. As the Syndicate is a permanent body, it stands
reconstituted by operation of law every three years. The
reconstitution of body of the Syndicate is not dependant upon the
period of nomination of the members by any authority, instead the
membership of the Senate, has to submit to the outer limit of the
tenure of the Syndicate.
8.4 It is not perceivable, nor it is possible to hold any light of the
above clear statutory provisions that any member who is not an ex-
officio member has a right to continue as member beyond and after
the term of three years of the Syndicate. The statutes fixes the
outer limit. Upon expiry of three years period, the Syndicate will be
reconstituted, the reconstitution of the Syndicate occurs by
operation of law.
9. In the facts of the present case, since the interim order dated
24.04.2024 worked out for itself in favour of the petitioners-
members and by virtue of protection of the interim order, they
having continued till the full term of three years as Syndicate
members and the term of three years having been expired on
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
15.06.2024, they cannot now claim any right to continue as
members any further.
9.1 The controversy originated in the writ petitions and dealt with
by learned Single Judge about the validity of Notification dated
25.05.2023 cancelling the nominations and whether the doctrine of
pleasure was applicable or it was rightly applied, are the questions
rendered academic in the realm in view of developments in light of
interim order. The Court would not touch the academic issues to
pronounce on merits thereof.
10. In view of the above discussions, as the term of the Syndicate
is over, consequentially, the membership of the appellants-
petitioners which was co-terminus with the period of the Syndicate
has also come to an end. No right survives for any of the appellants
to continue as members.
11. In the aforesaid view, the interim relief granted on 24.04.2024
is vacated. All the three appeals are dismissed in view of what is
observed and held hereinabove.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31562-DB
Interim Application No.2 of 2024 filed by the Rajiv Gandhi
University seeking clarification about the continuance or otherwise
of the interim order would not survive. It is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
AHB
