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. -3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43740 WP No. 22090 of 2023
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 -4- NC: 2023:KHC:43740 WP No. 22090 of 2023 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 -5- NC: 2023:KHC:43740 WP No. 22090 of 2023 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- -6-
NC: 2023:KHC:43740 WP No. 22090 of 2023 "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.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:43740 WP No. 22090 of 2023 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. -8-
NC: 2023:KHC:43740 WP No. 22090 of 2023
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, -9- NC: 2023:KHC:43740 WP No. 22090 of 2023 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 WP No. 22090 of 2023
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.
1 B.P. Singhal v. Union of India and Another, (2010) 6 SCC 331. 2 B.K. Uday Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (2020)3 Kant LJ 100. 3 T.Suneel Kumar, IPS v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2013 KAR 4564.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43740 WP No. 22090 of 2023
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 4 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 WP No. 22090 of 2023 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 WP No. 22090 of 2023 "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 WP No. 22090 of 2023
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 WP No. 22090 of 2023
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 WP No. 22090 of 2023 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.6
[(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 5 Substituted by Act 42 of 2017 w.e.f. 05.09.2017. 6 Ibid.
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43740 WP No. 22090 of 2023 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 WP No. 22090 of 2023 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 WP No. 22090 of 2023 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 WP No. 22090 of 2023 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 WP No. 22090 of 2023 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 WP No. 22090 of 2023
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 WP No. 22090 of 2023 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 WP No. 22090 of 2023 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 WP No. 22090 of 2023 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 WP No. 22090 of 2023 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 WP No. 22090 of 2023 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 have the power to remove the nominee at its pleasure and having regard to this ratio laid down by the Division Bench, the State Government was justified in removing the petitioner.
49. The writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm