A.M.BHASKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these batches of petitions, the challenge is raised to the orders withdrawing the nomination of the petitioners to the Syndicates of the two Universities. Further, in W.P.Nos.25612/2013 and 26170-26171/2013, the validity of Section 39(1) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 ('the said Act' for short) is also called into question.

(2.) Sri K.M.Nataraj, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.Haranahalli and Patil Associates for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.25964-25967/2013 submits that in all the 17 Universities in the State, the nominations to the Syndicates were withdrawn even when there is no semblance of reasons for the same. In support of his submission that the pleasure doctrine cannot be exercised arbitrarily and in the absence of reasons, he relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of B.P.SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER, 2010 6 SCC 331.

(3.) Based on the above-extracted decision, Sri Nataraj would contend that the withdrawal of the nominations should be for good and compelling reasons. The learned Senior Counsel has also drawn support from the Apex Court's judgment in the case of KUMARI SHRILEKHA VIDYARTHI ETC., v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS, 1991 AIR(SC) 537 wherein, the removal en mass of all District Government Counsel in U.P fell for consideration. The Apex Court has taken the considered view that the presence of public element attached to the office or post of the District Government Counsel is sufficient to attract Article 14 of the Constitution of India and bring the question of validity of the impugned circular terminating the appointment of all District Government Counsel in Uttar Pradesh within the scope of judicial review. It has vividly explained the provisions enabling the Government to terminate the appointment 'at any time without assigning any cause'. The expression 'at any time' merely means that the termination may be made even during the subsistence of the term of appointment and 'without assigning any cause' means without communicating any cause to the appointee, whose appointment is terminated. However, 'without assigning any cause' is not to be equated with 'without existence of any cause'. It merely means that the reason for which the termination is made need not be assigned or communicated to the appointee. The non-assigning of reasons or the non-communication thereof may be based on the public policy, but the termination of an appointment without the existence of any cogent reason in furtherance of the object for which the power is given would be arbitrary.