Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the removal of nominated members of the Syndicate and Senate of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) by the State Government. The petitioners, who were appointed as members under Section 31 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, for a fixed term of three years, challenged their premature removal through notifications dated 23 October 2020, which also appointed private respondents in their place. They contended that the removal order was issued without any prior notice, reasons, or opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the established legal position. The petitioners relied on the decision of this Court in G. Ashok Kumar v. State of Karnataka (2020(1) Kar. L.J. 461) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 331, which held that removal from a public office without reasons or hearing is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The State argued that the appointments were governed by the doctrine of pleasure and that the appointment orders themselves contained a clause ‘or until further orders’, giving the Government the power to terminate the tenure at any time. The State further contended that the petitioners had accepted these terms without objection and could not now challenge the removal. The court, however, noted that there was no recommendation from the Pro-Chancellor for the removal, and that the statute did not expressly provide for the doctrine of pleasure. Upon examining the provisions of the RGUHS Act, it was clear that the members of the Syndicate and Senate held office for a fixed period of three years from the date of nomination. The court held that even if the appointment letters used the phrase ‘until further orders’, the statutory tenure could not be curtailed arbitrarily. The removal without assigning any reason and without affording any hearing was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court concluded that the impugned notifications were legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed. The notifications dated 23.10.2020 (Annexure-A in WP No. 13414/2020 and Annexure-E in WP No. 12650/2020) were quashed, and the petitioners were declared entitled to continue as members of the respective bodies with all consequential benefits. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Doctrine of Pleasure - Applicability to Statutory Bodies - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The State contended that appointments were at pleasure and could be terminated without reasons under the terms of appointment. The court examined the doctrine and held that unless the statute expressly provides for termination at pleasure, removal must comply with principles of natural justice. Held that removal without reasons is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. (Paras 8, 9) B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to Hearing Before Termination of Statutory Tenure - Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, Section 31 - The petitioners were appointed under Section 31 for a fixed term of three years. Their removal by the impugned notification was without notice, reasons, or hearing. The court held that such removal violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. Held that the orders are quashed. (Paras 12) C) Education Law - University Bodies - Tenure of Syndicate and Senate Members - Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, Sections 21, 24, 31 - The Act provides that members of Syndicate and Senate hold office for a period of three years from the date of nomination. The court interpreted that the term is fixed and cannot be curtailed except in accordance with law. The appointment orders stating 'until further orders' cannot override the statutory tenure. Held that the removal was illegal. (Paras 4, 5) D) Constitutional Law - Arbitrariness - Removal Without Reasons - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The State's action in removing members without any reason and without hearing offended Article 14 as it was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court relied on B.P. Singhal case. Held that the impugned notification is set aside. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the removal of petitioners from the Syndicate and Senate of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences by notification dated 23.10.2020, without assigning reasons or providing an opportunity of hearing, is valid in law given that their appointments were for a fixed term of three years under Section 31 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, and in light of the doctrine of pleasure.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned notification dated 23.10.2020 (Annexure-A in WP 13414/2020 and Annexure-E in WP 12650/2020) is quashed. Petitioners are entitled to continue as members of the Syndicate and Senate of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Appointments for fixed term under statute cannot be terminated prematurely without valid reasons and opportunity of hearing
- Doctrine of pleasure not applicable unless expressly provided in statute
- Removal of statutory body members without notice or reasons violates principles of natural justice and Article 14
- Arbitrary removal is unconstitutional
- Appointment terms 'until further orders' must be read subject to statutory tenure
