SRI SIDDARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is in the cadre of Chief Engineer was appointed as Director of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'KPTCL' for short), by order of appointment dated 06.12.2019. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the respondent-State Government, whereby respondent No.4 was appointed as Director of KPTCL and the petitioner was appointed as Managing Director of Power Company of Karnataka Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'PCKL' for short), by virtue of another order passed on the same day. It is submitted that the fourth respondent was the Managing Director of 'PCKL' till the impugned order dated 07.10.2020 was passed.

(2.) Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no doubt, the appointment of the petitioner on 06.12.2019 as Director, KPTCL was under the pleasure of the Government, as the order dated 06.12.2019 clearly mentions that the appointment of the petitioner was "until further orders", nevertheless, it is submitted that appointments made under the pleasure of the Government does not mean licence to act arbitrarily. On the other hand, invocation of doctrine of pleasure by the Government must be for good and compelling reasons and it cannot be at the sweet will, whims and fancy of the State Government, but it can only be for valid reasons and the power referable to the doctrine of pleasure can be used reasonably and only for public good. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that these were the words used by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of the fourth respondent, when he challenged the order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33296/2019 before the Division Bench in W.A.No.3843/2019.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel submits that in W.A.No.3843/2019, clause (b) of Article 74 of the Articles of Association of BESCOM which conferred on the State Government power to nominate and appoint Directors to the office of the Board of Directors or Managing Director or fulltime Directors of the Company, fell for consideration at the hands of the Hon'ble Division Bench. It is submitted that in the present case, with respect to KPTCL, similar provision of law in the form of Clause (b) of Article 30 of the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of KPTCL has been invoked by the respondent-State Government.