PROF. DR. P.P. AJAYAKUMAR vs STATE OF KERALA
- Court
- Kerala High Court
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
1
2026:KER:85765
'CR'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 11 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
1 PROF. DR. P.P. AJAYAKUMAR
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.C.H.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT ‘SAMANUAYA’,
STRA-33, THURUVIKKAL.P.O., ULLOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
2 ADV. G. SUGUNAN
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O. C.K. GANGADHARAN, RESIDING AT GANGA’,
ATTINGAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695101
3 P. HARIDAS
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. LATE K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT
HARINANDANAM’, THRIKALATHUR.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683541
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.GANESH
SHRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. (SR.)
SHRI.ADARSH BABU C.S.
SMT.RESHMA PRAKASH KURIAN
RESPONDENT/S:
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
2
2026:KER:85765
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 SREE NARAYANA GURU OPEN UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDING,
KUREEPUZHA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691601
3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
SREE NARAYANA GURU OPEN UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY
BUILDING, KUREEPUZHA, KOLLAM,, PIN - 691601
4 THE REGISTRAR
SREE NARAYANAN GURU OPEN UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY
BUILDING, KUREEPUZHA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691601
5 KALLADA GIREESH
MANGAT HOUSE, KARALI.P.O., SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM, PIN
- 690521
6 DR.SULFI.P.
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, MES
MAMBAD COLLEGE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676542
7 DR. JOHN JOSEPH
NELLICKATHERUVIL HOUSE, NIRMALAGIRI.P.O.,
KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR., PIN - 670701
8 SREENIVASAN.M.K.,
SREERAGAM, NANGIARAKULAGNARA.P.O., HARIPAD,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690513
9 PROF. (DR.) RAJESH.C.
PROFESSOR AND HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT VICTORIA COLLEGE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
0 DR.S. JAYAPRAKASH
SARAS, SREENIVASAPURAM.P.O., VARKALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695145
11 AJITHAKUMARY
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
3
2026:KER:85765
JYOSTANA DALE, PUNNATHALA, NORTH 49, THIRUMULLAVARAM,
KOLLAM., PIN - 691012
12 DR.SHEENU.G.S.
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN NATURAL SCIENCE, KERALA
UNIVERSITY, TEACHER EDUCATION COLLEGE, KOLLAM, PIN -
691009
13 JOEL JOHN JOSEPH
M.A. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, S.N. OPEN UNIVERSITY,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691601
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SMT.GIRIJA K GOPAL
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SHRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.KAVYA VARMA M. M.
SHRI.ANOOP V.NAIR, STATE ATTORNEY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 27.10.2026 AND THE COURT ON 11.11.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
4
2026:KER:85765
CR'
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.27541 of 2026
----------------------------------------------
th
Dated this the 11 day of November, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed challenging Exts. P4 and P5 orders,
whereby the petitioners’ appointment as nominated members of
the Syndicate of Sree Narayana Guru Open University (for short,
the University) was cancelled, and they were substituted by
others. I will briefly narrate the facts: The University was
established by the 1st respondent under Act 1 of 2021, the Sree
Narayana Guru Open University Act (for short, Act 2021). The
University was established to introduce a new pattern of
learning, deviating from the conventional educational system, by
utilising the latest innovations in scientific and technological
developments and by conducting education in Online Distance
rd
Mode (ODM). The 3 respondent is the Vice-Chancellor of the
University. The University authorities were created under
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
5
2026:KER:85765
Chapter 4, Section 20 of the Act 2021. Under Section 20 of the
Act 2021, the Senate, Syndicate, Academic Council, Finance
Council, Cyber Council, and Board of Schools were created.
Section 25 of the Act 2021 lays down the Constitution of the
University Syndicate. As per Section 25(1), the Syndicate shall
consist of the members narrated in clauses (i) to (iv).
Thereafter, it deals with the elected members. One member
elected by the members of the Legislative Assembly, from
among themselves, will be the elected member. Subsequently,
the section deals with the nominated members. We are
concerned about sub-section (ii) in nominated members, which
says that eight eminent persons nominated by the Government
from the fields of higher education, labour and industry, of
whom one shall be from the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribes and one shall be a woman as Syndicate members. Section
26 of the Act 2021 says that the term of office of the members
of the Syndicate other than ex-officio members dealt with in
Section 25 shall be co-terminus with the term of the Syndicate.
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
6
2026:KER:85765
According to the petitioners, Section 26(1) makes it clear that
the Syndicate shall be reconstituted every four years. Sub-
section (2) lays down that the term of office of the members of
the Syndicate shall be co-terminus with the term of the
Syndicate. Therefore, it is submitted that the term of the
members of the Syndicate has been fixed by the plenary Act
itself to be four years. The petitioners herein were nominated as
the members of the Syndicate by the Government as per the
Government Order dated 14.03.2025, as evident from Ext.P1.
The petitioners herein are serial Nos. 2, 4 and 6, respectively, in
st
Ext.P1. Among the petitioners, the 1 petitioner was the former
Pro Vice-Chancellor of Kerala University. Following the Ext.P1
th
order, the 4 respondent issued a statutory notification
nominating the petitioners as members of the Syndicate, and
Ext.P2 is the order. Therefore, it is submitted that, in
accordance with Section 26 of the Act 2021, the term of office of
the petitioners as members of the Syndicate, being 4 years, will
expire only on 13.03.2029.
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
7
2026:KER:85765
2. Therefore, it is submitted that, on a combined reading
of Section 25 and Section 26 of the Act 2021, it can be seen that
the above provision has not conferred any power upon the
members who are nominated by the Government to the
Syndicate to remove them on any ground, including loss of
confidence or invoking the Doctrine of Pleasure. It is submitted
that, in constituting the Senate of Kerala University, the
Mahatma Gandhi University Act, etc., expressly incorporates a
provision empowering the Government to recall its nominations
to any authority of the University, invoking the Doctrine of
Pleasure. Thus, the petitioners, having been nominated by the
Government as per Ext.P1 order, are entitled to complete the
full term of four years in office as members of the Syndicate of
the University, and the Government has no power to withdraw
the petitioners' nominations, is the submission. It is also
submitted that, even assuming, for argument's sake, that in
case the nominated members committed any misconduct, then
the Government can be assumed to possess the power to recall
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
8
2026:KER:85765
the petitioners; however, without any such misconduct
committed by the petitioners or other members of the Syndicate
of the University nominated by the Government, the
Government cannot recall the nominated members. It is further
submitted that, even in the case of other Universities, the Act
itself includes an express provision to recall members nominated
by the Government to the different authorities of the
Universities, invoking the Doctrine of Pleasure. Even in such
cases, the petitioners submit, based on this Court's decision in
Deepak S.P. v. The Chancellor, University of Kerala and
others [2014 (1) KLT 520], that the Doctrine of Pleasure cannot
be invoked arbitrarily or mala fide. The said judgment is
produced as Ext.P3. It is submitted that the above decision
considered the Chancellor's action in recalling the members
nominated to the Senate of the Kerala University. Section 18 of
the Kerala University Act expressly incorporates a proviso
conferring power upon the Chancellor and the Government to
recall the nominated members invoking the Pleasure Doctrine. It
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
9
2026:KER:85765
is submitted that, in interpreting the above proviso, this Court
held that even if the power is conferred on the Chancellor to
recall a member nominated to the Senate of the Kerala
University invoking the Doctrine of Pleasure, it cannot be
exercised capriciously or arbitrarily.
3. With the above legal background, the petitioners
submit that the Government, without any basis, issued the
impugned order, nominating new members to the Syndicate of
the University by withdrawing the nominations of the petitioners
already made. Ext.P4 is the order withdrawing the nominations
of the petitioners and other members of the Syndicate of the
University and nominating respondents 5 to 13 as the new
rd
members of the Syndicate. Thereafter, the 3 respondent issued
a notification nominating respondents 5 to 13 as the members of
the Syndicate of the University. It is submitted that Ext.P4
shows that no reason whatsoever has been stated, nor does one
exist, to withdraw the petitioners' nominations as members of
the Syndicate of the University. It is submitted that, in the case
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
10
2026:KER:85765
of the 1st petitioner, the 6th respondent has been nominated; in
place of the 2nd petitioner, the 7th respondent has been
rd th
nominated; and in place of the 3 petitioner, the 9 respondent
has been nominated as members of the Syndicate of the
University. It is further submitted that Ext.P4 shows that no
reason whatsoever has been stated for withdrawing the
petitioners' nominations and nominating respondents 5 to 13 in
place of the petitioners and other members of the Syndicate of
the University. It is submitted that no reason whatsoever exists
to date to withdraw the nominations of the petitioners because
they have neither committed any misconduct nor faced any
allegations of illegal or unfair actions as members of the
Syndicate of the University. Hence, it is submitted that the
Ext.P4 order withdrawing the nominations of the petitioners and
other members of the Syndicate is illegal, arbitrary, unfair,
unreasonable, and capricious, and violates Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Hence this writ petition.
4. Heard Sri. Elvin Peter, the learned Senior Counsel,
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
11
2026:KER:85765
instructed by Sri. K.R.Ganesh for the petitioners and Sri.Anoop
V. Nair, the learned State Attorney, appearing for the State. I
also heard Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel,
instructed by Smt. Nisha George, for respondents 5 to 13. Smt.
Girija Venogopal, the learned Standing Counsel for the
University, appeared for respondents 2 to 4.
5. The Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
argued the matter in detail and submitted that any arbitrary
action of the State will be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, and in Ext.P3 judgment, considering the
powers of the Chancellor to withdraw the nomination of the
members of the Senate of the Kerala University, it has been
succinctly laid down that any action withdrawing the nomination
of the Senate of the Kerala University, even by invoking the
Doctrine of Pleasure, will be set aside by this Court, if the power
is exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The Senior
Counsel also submitted that absolutely no reason whatsoever is
mentioned in Exts.P4 and P5 for withdrawing the nominations of
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
12
2026:KER:85765
the petitioners and to appoint the party respondents in their
place. It is submitted that the power exercised by the
Government in Ext.P4 is not a sovereign power, but it is a
statutory power. Therefore, it is submitted that a statutory
authority must act only within the four corners of the Statute.
The Senior Counsel submitted that under Section 25 of the Act,
2021, the Government has no power to withdraw the
nomination. Hence, it is clear that the Ext.P4 order issued by the
Government withdrawing the nomination of the petitioners and
other members of the Syndicate of the University, and the
Ext.P5 consequential notification issued without any authority of
law, are therefore void and non est. The learned Senior Counsel
also submitted that Section 25 of the Act, 2021 contains no
express provision conferring power on the Government to
withdraw nominations already made to the Syndicate of the
University, and the provision also does not empower the
Government to invoke the Doctrine of Pleasure. However, it is
submitted that even conceding, without admitting, that the
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
13
2026:KER:85765
Government, which has nominated a member to a statutory
body, has to be conceded the power to withdraw the
nomination, such power can be exercised only on the basis of
some reason, and no reason is mentioned in the impugned
order, is the submission. The Senior Counsel also relied on the
decision of the Apex Court reported in All Kerala Pvt. College
Teachers’ Assn. v. Nair Service Society [1994 (5) SCC 479]
and submitted that the University should be kept outside the
control of the Government and should not be politicised. Senior
Counsel also relied on several other judgments, which I will
consider later.
6. The State Attorney justified the impugned order and
submitted that once there is a power to appoint, it includes the
power to suspend or dismiss. The State Attorney relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Maharashtra v.
Shaikh Mahemud & Another [2022 (3) KHC 310]. The State
Attorney also relied on Section 16 of the General Clauses Act,
1897.
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
14
2026:KER:85765
7. The Standing Counsel appearing for the University,
Advocate Girija K. Gopal, argued the matter in detail, supporting
the contentions of the State Attorney. She raised other
contentions also. This Court requested the Standing Counsel to
submit a note codifying her main contentions. Accordingly, the
Standing Counsel submitted a written note raising the following
questions for consideration:
"Questions that arise for consideration
1. Appointment and nomination stand on a different
footing - There being no dispute as to the fact that it is
on "nomination" by the Government and not by any
process of "selection" or "appointment" that the
petitioner is included as a nominated member in the
Syndicate of the University, does the provision which
states that the term of nominated members shall be
co- terminus with that of the Syndicate give any
vested right to a nominated member to continue till
the expiry of the term of the Syndicate, irrespective of
satisfaction of the nominating authority?
2. Should the provision providing for tenure of
nominated members be understood as a provision
ensuring guarantee of a minimum tenure co-terminus
with that of the Syndicate, before which it cannot be
curtailed under any circumstance, or just as a
maximum tenure.
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
15
2026:KER:85765
3. Since the petitioner is "nominated" during the
period when a different political party was in power,
are not political considerations a valid ground for
substitution of nominations?
4. Though the pleasure doctrine is not explicitly
incorporated in the language of the provision, fact
being that it is by nomination that the petitioner is
included as a member in the Syndicate of the
University, does it take away the right of the
nominating authority to review nominations and curtail
the period of nomination, since the pleasure doctrine is
implicit in the very act of nomination itself?
5. Does not the nominating authority have the power
to withdraw previous nominations and substitute its
persons of choice? Is not Section 21 of the General
Clauses Act applicable in such a case, since the
authority to nominate includes the authority to
rescind, vary, modify or cancel as well?
6. Can nominated members and elected members be
treated at par in the matter of their term of office?
7. Is not the scope of judicial review in such matters
extremely limited, particularly when there are no
allegations of malafides attributed?
8. The Senior Counsel appearing for the party
respondents, Sree George Poonthottam, also raised different
contentions. The Senior Counsel submitted that, under Section
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
16
2026:KER:85765
26 of the Act 2021, it is stated only that the Syndicate shall be
reconstituted every 4 years. Therefore, the Senior Counsel
submitted that Section 26 provides only an outer limit for
reconstituting the Syndicate. The Senior Counsel compared
Section 26 of Act 2021 with the term of office of members
mentioned in the Kerala University Act, 1974, Cochin University
of Science and Technology Act, 1986, Mahatma Gandhi
University Act, 1985, Calicut University Act, 1975, Kannur
University Act, 1996, Kerala Agricultural University Act, 1971,
National University of Advanced Legal Studies Act, 2005, Sree
Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994, Kerala
Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 2010, Kerala
University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies Act, 2010, Kerala
University of Health Sciences Act, 2010, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam
Technological University Act, 2015. The Senior Counsel
submitted that, in all other Acts, a term is fixed while
nominating or appointing the members of the Syndicate. But,
under Section 26(1) of the Act 2021, it mentions only an outer
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
17
2026:KER:85765
limit for reconstitution of the Syndicate. The Senior Counsel
submitted that Section 26(2) of the Act 2021 only says that the
term of office of the members of the Syndicate other than ex-
officio members shall be co-terminus with the term of the
Syndicate. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners have no
right to continue for a period of 4 years as per the Statute itself.
9. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners and the respondents. The point to be decided in this
case is whether a nominated member of the Syndicate can
continue for 4 years under the Act, 2021, and whether the
Government can substitute nominated members before the
expiry of the term without assigning any reason. It is an
admitted fact that no specific reason is mentioned in Exts. P4
and P5 for removing the petitioners and other members. In Ext.
P4, it is only stated that, in exercise of the powers vested with it
under Chapter IV, Section 25 of the Act 2021, the Government
has decided to review the nominations of the Syndicate of the
University, and the petitioners and others were replaced. In
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
18
2026:KER:85765
the concluding portion of Ext.P4, it is stated that the
Government hereby withdraws the nominations of members
mentioned in Column (3) and replaces them with nominations
made in Column (4) with immediate effect. Accordingly, this
withdraws the petitioners' nominations.
10. Section 25 of the Act 2021 deals with the constitution
of the Syndicate of the University. It would be better to extract
Section 25 of the Act 2021:
“25. The Syndicate.— The Syndicate shall consist of
the following members, namely:—
Ex-officio Members
(i) The Vice-Chancellor;
(ii) The Secretary to Government in-charge of the
Higher Education Department or an officer not below
the rank of a Joint Secretary to Government
nominated by him;
(iii) The Secretary to Government in-charge of the
Finance Department or an officer not below the rank
of a Joint Secretary to Government nominated by
him;
(iv) The Pro-Vice-Chancellor.
Elected Members
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
19
2026:KER:85765
One member elected by the members of the
Legislative Assembly, from among themselves.
Nominated Members
(i) One person nominated by the Vice-Chancellor from
among the Heads of School of Studies as may be
prescribed by Statutes;
(ii) Eight eminent persons nominated by the
Government from the field of higher education,
labour and industry, of whom one shall be from
the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes and
one shall be a woman;
(iii) One student nominated by the Government from
among the registered students of the University.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. From the above provision, the nominated members
can be classified into three categories. The Vice-Chancellor may
nominate one person from among the Heads of School of
Studies, as may be prescribed by Statutes, and the Government
may nominate one student from among the registered students
of the University. The other one, which is to be discussed in this
case, is that eight eminent persons nominated by the
Government from the field of Higher Education, Labour and
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
20
2026:KER:85765
Industry, of whom one shall be from the Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribes and one shall be a woman. Therefore, eight
eminent persons will be nominated by the Government.
12. What is the meaning of “eminent persons”?. “Eminent
persons” means persons who are well known and highly
respected, especially for outstanding ability, achievements or
expertise in a particular field. As per Section 25 of the Act
2021, “eminent persons” nominated by the Government should
be from the fields of Higher Education, Labour and Industry, of
whom one should be from the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe, and one should be a woman. The word eminent person
conveys more than mere fame; it implies distinction and earned
respect. Admittedly, the petitioners were nominated as
Syndicate members in the category of “eminent persons”. There
is no doubt that, if a legal right exists for nominated “eminent
persons” and it is violated, they can approach a court of law to
protect it. But every “eminent person” should remember that
withdrawing a nomination does not necessarily withdraw
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
21
2026:KER:85765
recognition of eminence. Whether the governing statutes permit
such withdrawal, or do not permit such withdrawal of a
nominated eminent person, a perusal of Ext. P4 and P5
withdrawal order does not reflect adversely on the nominees’
character, competence, or standing as a reason for the
withdrawal. “Eminence” alone cannot confer an indefeasible
right to continue in office unless there is statutory backing. The
petitioners are entitled to question the legality of the action if it
violates a statutory right. But that question must, however, be
decided by reference to the statutory scheme and the
permissible limits of the power exercised. I may add that
gracefully accepting a lawful withdrawal may be a matter of
personal dignity, and it cannot be made a legal obligation to
forego the right to challenge it. Even though legal rights exist to
challenge the withdrawal of nomination, I think eminent persons
should show grace by accepting the withdrawal if no imputations
against their "eminence" are made by withdrawing the
nominations. That will only enhance their “eminence”. “Eminent
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
22
2026:KER:85765
persons” should know that they are not the only “eminent
persons” in this world; there are others also, and if they are
nominated as Syndicate members because of their eminence,
they should have accepted their withdrawal also because of their
"eminence" without fighting with the Government to establish
their “eminency”. This is only an observation, but if the
petitioners want to contest it, it is the petitioners' personal
choice. Therefore, this court is forced to decide the matter on
merit. I make it clear that the Government's decision to
nominate the petitioners because they are “eminent persons”
will not be affected even if this court upholds the impugned
order withdrawing their nomination.
13. The first question to be decided is whether any
statutory right of the petitioners is violated to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. A perusal of Sections 25 and 26 of the Act
2021 shows only that the Syndicate is to be reconstituted every
four years and that the term of office of the members of the
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
23
2026:KER:85765
Syndicate, other than ex-officio members, shall be co-terminus
with the term of the Syndicate. Section 25 of the Act 2021 is
already extracted in paragraph 10 of this judgment. Section 26
(1) and (2) of the Act 2021 are extracted hereunder:
26. Reconstitution of the Syndicate.—
(1) The Syndicate shall be reconstituted in every four
years.
(2) The term of office of the members of the
Syndicate other than ex-officio members shall be co-
terminus with the term of the Syndicate.
14. From the above, it is clear that no term for the
Syndicate is mentioned, and it only says that the Syndicate is to
be reconstituted every four years. Moreover, no term is
mentioned as far as the nominated members are concerned, as
per Section 25 of the Act 2021. I think there is some force in the
argument raised by Senior Counsel Advocate George
Poonthottam, appearing for the party respondents, based on the
comparison with the other statute and Sections 25 and 26 of the
Act 2021. Adv. George Poonthottam made available a written
note in which corresponding Sections in the other Universities
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
24
2026:KER:85765
Act are stated in comparison with the corresponding sections in
the Act 2021. I will extract the entire note given by the Senior
Counsel, Adv. George Poonthottam.
A. SREENARAYANA GURU OPEN UNIVERSITY
ACT, 2021
Chapter IV deals with the Authorities of the University.
a. Section 25 provides for the members of the
Syndicate.
b. Section 26 provides for reconstitution of the
Syndicate, wherein, the relevant portion of Section
26(1) reads as hereunder:
" 26. Reconstitution of the Syndicate - (1) The
Syndicate shall be reconstituted in every four
years. "
B. THE KERALA UNIVERSITY ACT, 1974
Chapter IV deals with the Authorities of the University.
a. Section 21 provides for the members of the
Syndicate.
b. Section 22 provides for the term of office of
members of the Syndicate, the relevant portion of
which reads as hereunder:
" 22. Term of office of members of Syndicate. -
[(1) Members of the Syndicate, other than the ex-
officio members, shall hold office for a term of four
years [from the date of their election or nomination as
the case may be.]
Provided that no person elected in his capacity as a
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
25
2026:KER:85765
member of a particular body or as the holder of a
particular office shall be a member of the Syndicate for
a longer period than three months after he has ceased
to be such member or holder of such office unless in
the meanwhile he again becomes a member of that
electorate or the holder of that office.
C. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, 1986
Chapter IV deals with the Authorities of the University,
Staff Council and University Appellate Tribunal.
a. Section 17 provides for the members of the
Syndicate.
b. Section 17(2) provides for the term of office of the
members nominated under various categories, which
reads as hereunder:
" 17 The Syndicate
(2) The term of the office of the members nominated
under items (vii), (viii), [(ix), (x), (xii), (xiii)] in sub-
section (1) shall be four years from the date of
their nomination and they [shall be eligible] for re-
nomination:
Provided that no person nominated in his capacity as
a member of the Legislative Assembly shall hold office
as a member of the Syndicate for a longer period than
three months after he has ceased to be such member
of the Legislative Assembly, unless in the meanwhile,
he again becomes a member of the Legislative
Assembly.
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
26
2026:KER:85765
[Provided further that the members nominated by
the Government under sub-section (1) of Section 17
shall hold their office during the pleasure of the
Government.]
D. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY ACT, 1985
Chapter IV provides for the Authorities of the
University.
a. Section 21 provides for the members of the
Syndicate.
b. Section 22 provides for the term of office of
members of the Syndicate, the relevant portion of
which reads as hereunder:
" 22 Term of office of members of the Syndicate: -
(1) Members of the Syndicate, other than ex-officio
members, shall hold office for a term of four years
from the date of their nomination :
Provided that no person [nominated] in his capacity
as a member of a particular body or as the holder of a
particular office shall be a member of the Syndicate for
a longer period than three months after he has ceased
to be such member or holder of such office unless in
the meanwhile he again becomes a member of that
[body] or the holder of that office:
[xxx]
Provided further that a member other than ex-officio
member shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his
term, continue to hold office until his successor is
nominated:
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
27
2026:KER:85765
Provided also that no person other than an ex-officio
member shall be eligible to hold office for more than
two terms in succession."
E. CALICUT UNIVERSITY ACT, 1975
Chapter IV provides for the Authorities of the
University.
a. Section 21 provides for the members of the
Syndicate.
b. Section 22 provides for the term of office of
members of the Syndicate, the relevant portion of
which reads as hereunder:
" 22. Term of office of members of Syndicate. -
[(1) Members of the Syndicate, other than ex-officio
members, shall hold office for a term of four years
[from the date of their election or nomination, as the
case may be:]
Provided that no person elected in his capacity as
member of a particular body or as the holder of a
particular office shall be a member of the Syndicate for
a longer period than three months after he has ceased
to be such member or holder of such office unless in
the meanwhile he again becomes a member of that
electorate or the holder of that office:
[Provided also that the term of the Syndicate
shall be co-terminus with the term of the
Senate:]
Provided also that no person other than an ex-officio
member shall be eligible to hold office for more than
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
28
2026:KER:85765
two terms in succession.
F. KANNUR UNIVERSITY ACT, 1996
Chapter IV deals with the Authorities of the University
a. Section 23 provides for the members of the
Syndicate.
b. Section 24 of the term of office of members of the
Syndicate, the relevant portion of which reads as
hereunder.
"[ 24. Term of office of members of Syndicate. -
(1) Members of the Syndicate other than ex-officio
members, shall hold office for a term of four years
from the date of their nomination :
Provided that no person nominated in his capacity as
a member of a particular body or as the holder of a
particular office shall be a member of the Syndicate for
a longer period than three months after he has ceased
to be such member or holder of such office unless in
the meanwhile he again becomes a member of that
body or the holder of that office:
Provided further that a member other than ex-officio
member shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his
term, continue to hold office until his successor is
nominated:
Provided also that no person other than ex-officio
member shall be eligible to hold office for more than
two terms in succession.
G. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY ACT,
1971
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
29
2026:KER:85765
Chapter III deals with the Authorities of the University.
a. Section 14 provides for the members of the
executive committee.
b. Section 15 provides for the term of office of
members of executive committee, the relevant portion
of which reads as hereunder:
" 15. Term of office of members of Executive
Committee
"(1) [An elected or nominated member] of the
Executive Committee shall cease to hold office on the
day immediately preceding the date of reconstitution
of the General Council which elected him.
(2) The members of the Executive Committee, [other
than the elected or nominated members] who have
ceased to hold office by virtue of the provisions of
Sub-section (1), shall be competent to exercise the
powers and perform the functions of the Executive
Committee under this Act and the Statutes, Ordinance
and Regulations."
H. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ADVANCED LEGAL
STUDIES ACT, 2005
a. Section 11 provides for the Authorities of the
University.
b. Section 18 provides for the term of office of the
members of the Executive Council, which provides as
hereunder:
" 18. Term of office of the members of the
Executive Council. -
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
30
2026:KER:85765
(1) The term of office of the members of the Executive
Council, nominated or co-opted, shall be four
years from the date of their nomination or co-
option , as the case may be.
(2) Where a person has become a member of the
Executive Council by reason of the office or
appointment he holds the membership shall cease
when he ceases to hold that office or appointment or
on removal by the nominating authority."
I. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF
SANSKRIT ACT, 1994
Chapter IV deals with the Authorities of the University
and the Appellate Tribunal
a. Section 12 provides for the members of the
Syndicate.
b. Section 13 provides for the Constitution of
Syndicate, which reads as hereunder:
"13. Constitution of Syndicate. - The Syndicate shall
be constituted by the Chancellor and shall be
reconstituted every four years. "
J. KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY ACT, 2010
Chapter V deals with the Authorities of the University
a. Section 24 provides for the members of the Board of
Management.
b. Section 25 provides for the term of office of
members of Board of Management, the relevant
portion of which reads as hereunder:
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
31
2026:KER:85765
" 25. Term of office of members of the Board of
Management.
(1) The term of office of members of the Board of
Management, other than ex-officio members shall be
three years. "
K. KERALA UNIVERSITY OF FISHERIES AND
OCEAN STUDIES ACT, 2010
Chapter III deals with the Authorities of the University
a. Section 12 provides for the members of the
University Governing Council.
b. Section 16 provides for the term of office of
members of University Governing Council, the relevant
portion of which reads as hereunder:
" 16. Term of office of members of University
Governing Council. -
(1) An elected or nominated member of the University
Governing Council shall cease to hold office on the day
immediately preceding the date of reconstitution of the
University Governing Council which elected or
nominated him.
(2) The members of the University Governing Council,
other than the elected or nominated members who
have ceased to hold office by virtue of the provisions
of sub-section (1) shall be competent to exercise the
powers and perform the functions of the University
Governing Council under this Act and Statutes,
Ordinance and Regulations made thereunder."
L. KERALA HEALTH UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
32
2026:KER:85765
SCIENCES ACT, 2010
Chapter IV provides for the Authorities of the
University.
a. Section 22 provides for the members of the
Governing Council and the term of members of the
Governing Council, which reads as hereunder:
" 22. Governing Council. -
(5) Members of the Governing Council other than ex-
officio members shall hold office for a term of four
years from their date of nomination. "
Μ. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological
University Act, 2015
Chapter IV provides for the Authorities of the
University.
a. Section 27 provides for the members of the
Executive Committee.
b. Section 29 provides for the term of office of
members of the Executive Committee, which reads as
hereunder:
" 29. Term of office of members of the Executive
Committee. -
The members of the Executive Committee, other than
ex- officio members, shall hold office for a term of
four years from the date of their nomination. The
term of office of other members of the Executive
Committee shall be co- terminus with the office they
hold."
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
33
2026:KER:85765
15. From the above, it is clear that, as per the respective
statutes concerned, in certain universities, the term of an
authority is specifically mentioned, and in certain universities,
the term is not specifically stated. This shows that legislative
discretion is exercised differently regarding the term of office of
different authorities in different universities. When the
legislature intends to fix a particular term for a syndicate or
other authority in certain universities, but not for the syndicate
and other authorities in some other university, that is a matter
of legislative wisdom into which a court of law cannot intervene.
This Court cannot step into the shoes of the legislature and
declare that the Syndicate has a prescribed term unless the
section on the term of the Syndicate is ambiguous. Now I will
come to the relevant sections in the Act 2021. A reading of
Section 26 of the Act 2021 makes it clear that there is only an
outer limit to reconstitute a Syndicate. No specific term is
mentioned for the Syndicate. By contrast, the Kerala University
Act 1974 provides that Syndicate members, other than ex-officio
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
34
2026:KER:85765
members, shall hold office for a term of four years. Such a
provision is not available in the Act 2021. Similarly, the other
Acts extracted above also show that the nominated members'
term is specifically mentioned by the legislature. But, as per the
Act 2021, no such term is specifically mentioned for
continuation, and it only says that the Syndicate shall be
reconstituted every four years. Therefore, when the term is not
specifically mentioned in the Act 2021, I am of the considered
opinion that the petitioners have no legal right to continue for
four years. Ext.P1 is the original nomination of the petitioners
and others. It only says that the petitioners and others were
nominated as Syndicate members, invoking the powers under
Section 25 of the Act, 2021. Their term is not mentioned in
Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is the consequential notification issued by the
University after Ext.P1. Ext.P2 also does not mention a term. In
such circumstances, as I mentioned earlier, when the statute
does not provide a specific term for the nominated Syndicate
members, the petitioners do not have any legal or statutory
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
35
2026:KER:85765
rights to continue for a period of four years just because Section
26(1) of the Act 2021 shows that the Syndicate shall be
reconstituted every four years and Section 26(2) of the Act 2021
says that the term of office of the members of the Syndicate
other than ex-officio members shall be co-terminus with the
term of the Syndicate. That is why I said that eminent persons
should show their grace while fighting to retain their nomination,
if there is no violation of their statutory rights. When there is no
term in Exts. P1, P2, and also as per the statute, I think, the
petitioners' contentions that they have a statutory right to
continue for four years cannot be accepted.
16. The State Attorney relied on Section 16 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897. I think Section 16 of the General Clauses Act
has little application in this case, because Section 16 of the
General Clauses Act deals with “appointment” and not
“nomination”. It would be better to extract Section 16 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897:
“Section 16: Power to appoint to include power to
suspend or dismiss - Where, by any Central Act or
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
36
2026:KER:85765
Regulation, a power to make any appointment is
conferred, then, unless a different intention appears,
the authority having for the time being power to make
the appointment shall also have power to suspend or
dismiss any person appointed whether by itself or any
other authority in exercise of that power.”
It says that if a power to make any appointment is conferred,
then, unless a different intention appears, it includes the power
to suspend or dismiss any person appointed. The above principle
is settled and undisputed. But, admittedly, this case involves no
“appointment”, and here it is “nomination”. Here, I agree with
Advocate Girija, who appeared for the University and argued in
detail about the difference between “appointment” and
“nomination”. There is a lot of difference between “appointment”
and “nomination”. The appointment ordinarily means the formal
act of placing a person in an office or position. Nomination
means designating or selecting a person for a position under a
statute. As stated earlier, appointment is a formal placement in
an office or position, while nomination is the designation or
selection of a person for a position. As argued by Advocate
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
37
2026:KER:85765
Girija, Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has some bearing
on “nomination”, which deals with the power to issue, to include
the power to add to, amend, vary or rescind, notifications,
orders, rules or by-laws. But we need to go to such contentions
only if the term of the syndicate is prescribed by the statute and
the same is violated and consequently a legal right accrued to
the petitioner. But this court already found that no legal or
statutory rights of the petitioners are violated and hence the
petitioners who are only nominated members of the syndicate
have no legal right to challenge the withdrawal of their
nominations as syndicate members.
17. The State Attorney also relied on the judgment of the
Apex Court in Shaikh Mahemud's case (supra) . It would be
better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment.
“9. It is relevant to point out that the appointment of
the first respondent was by the method of nomination
by the State Government in terms of clause (c) of sub-
section (1) of S.14. The appointment under both
categories (election or nomination) should be by a
notification issued by the State Government and
published in the official Gazette. This is by virtue of sub-
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
38
2026:KER:85765
section (9) of S.14. Sub-section (9) of S.14 reads as
follows:
"14. Composition of Board. - xxxx xxxx xxxx
(9) The members of the Board shall be appointed by
the State Government by notification in the Official
Gazette."
10. It is true that S.15 prescribes a term of office of
five years for the members of the Board, from the date
of the notification issued under S.14(9). This S.15 reads
as follows:
"15. Term of office. - The members of the Board
shall hold office for a term of five years from the date
of notification referred to in sub-S.9 of S.14."
11. Though S.14(9) is common to the appointment
under both categories and though S.15 speaks about
the term of office of members appointed by a
notification under S.14(9), nomination always stands on
a slightly different footing than election. Perhaps, as per
the scheme of the Act, it may not be possible for the
State Government to breach the process of election
from each of the electoral colleges under clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of S.14, by curtailing the term of office
of such elected members. But the same logic cannot be
extended to nominated members. In other words, it
may not be possible to hold that there is no elbow
space for the State Government in the cases of
nomination covered by clauses (c), (d) or (e).
12. It must be noted that under clause (e) of sub-
section (1) of S.14, an officer of the State Government
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
39
2026:KER:85765
not below the rank of Joint Secretary to Government
may be nominated to the Board. If S.15 is construed in
the manner in which the High Court has construed, such
a nominated officer of the State Government may have
to be allowed to continue, even if he reaches
superannuation before completing five years of tenure.
Therefore, it is not possible to accept the view of the
High Court that the term of office prescribed under S.15
cannot be curtailed. This is so at least in respect of a
nominated member.
13. For holding that the cancellation of appointment of
the first respondent was arbitrary, the High Court did
not really have any material. The only reason why the
High Court held it to be arbitrary is that the order of
cancellation of appointment did not contain any reason
and that the cancellation went against S.15. For holding
the action of the Executive to be arbitrary, there must
be a factual basis. It did not exist in this case.
14. It was contended by the learned counsel for the
first respondent that the notification of cancellation of
appointment was issued in exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-section (9) read with clause (c) of
sub-section (1) of S.14. Since these provisions deals
only with appointment and not with removal, it was
contended by the learned counsel for the first
respondent that the notification of cancellation was not
in accordance with law.
15. But the above contention loses sight of the fact
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
40
2026:KER:85765
that the power to appoint would include the power of
cancellation of appointment. Therefore, the said
contention is liable to be rejected.
16. It was next contended by the learned counsel for
the first respondent that the procedure prescribed
under S.20 of the Act for the removal of the respondent
was not followed. But this contention is unsustainable,
in view of the fact that the respondent was not removed
from the office of membership of the Waqf Board. His
appointment was cancelled by the notification impugned
in the writ petition. Therefore, S.20 has no application
to the case.”
18. The above decision only reiterates the principle of
Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Since Section 16 of
the General Clauses Act, 1897, may not be applicable to the
facts of this case, I think this Court need not discuss the same in
detail.
19. Adv. Elvin Peter relied on several judgments to
support his contentions. The first judgment relied on by Senior
Counsel, Adv. Elvin Peter, is State of Kerala V.
Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan [1997 KHC 155] . The Senior
Counsel relied on paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the above judgment.
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
41
2026:KER:85765
It would be better to extract the same.
“5. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, it
was first contended on behalf of the appellants that the
Government is free to withdraw the nomination of any
nominated member to any statutory body at its
pleasure and such nominated members do not have any
vested right to continue in the nominated posts till the
expiry of their terms as stipulated. The first contention
has to be rejected. A distinction has to be drawn
between cases in which nominees hold office during the
pleasure of the Government and nominees whose term
of office do not depend upon such pleasure. In cases
where nominees do not hold office during the pleasure,
their term is not liable to be terminated otherwise than
for reasons stated in the Statute.
6. S.17(2) of the Act provides that the terms of office of
the members nominated from among the members of
the Legislative Assembly of Kerala shall be four years
from the date of their nomination. S.17(1)(x) of the
Act, provides that the Syndicate of the University shall
consist of two persons nominated by the Government
from among the members of the Legislative Assembly
of Kerala. The Syndicate is a statutory body. The
reconstitution of the Syndicate every four years can be
arranged only by the Registrar under the directions of
the Vice-Chancellor as per Statute 74 of the Cochin
University First Statutes, 1980. It is a statutory rule
that the process of nomination to vacancies can be done
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
42
2026:KER:85765
by the nominating bodies like the Government, only
upon such vacancy being determined and informed
either by the Vice-Chancellor or the Registrar. This has
been the practice in vogue in the University as it can be
seen from the letter dated 8.8.1991, Ext. P4, issued by
the Registrar of the University of the Government.
Thus, the Government have no power to nominate at
their whims and fancies, thereby eroding the authority
of statutory bodies constituted to secure excellence in
the field of education independent of Governmental
interference. In view of these provisions, it cannot be
contended that the Government can withdraw the
nomination at any time. The decision in OM. Narain
Agarwal and Ors. v. Nagar Palika Shahjahanpur and
Others 1993 (2) SCC 242 cannot be of any help to the
appellate. In the said case, the statute had itself
provided that the nominated member shall hold office
during the pleasure of the State Government
6A. In accordance with the terms of S.17(2) of the Act,
the term of office of the nominated member from
among the members of the Legislative Assembly of
Kerala shall be four years from the date of their
nomination and in accordance with S.17(1)(x) of the
Act the Syndicate shall consist of two such nominated
persons by the Government from among the member of
the Legislative Assembly of Kerala. Thus, such a
nominated member shall, normally for a term of four
years from the date of his nomination, unless he ceases
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
43
2026:KER:85765
to be a member of the Legislative Assembly or incurs
disability to continue as a member of such Body under
S.46(4) of the Act which has specifically stated that if
any member who is not an ex officio member, fails to
attend three consecutive meetings then he shall cease
to be a member of the Syndicate. Therefore, the
contention of the appellants that such a nominated
member can be removed at any time in accordance with
the pleasure of the Government is not tenable.”
20. The above decision was rendered by the Division
Bench of this Court as far as the nomination to the Syndicate as
per the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986
(for short 'Act, 1986 ’) is concerned. Sec.17 is the relevant
provision in that case. Sec.17(2) of the Act, 1986 clearly says
that the term of office of the members nominated under items
(vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xii) and (xiii) in sub-section (1) shall be
four years from the date of their nomination. This shows that
the syndicate members have a fixed term, and in that context,
the Division Bench of this Court made the above observation. As
I mentioned earlier, on a combined reading of Secs. 25 & 26 of
the Act, 2021, no term is fixed for the syndicate's nominated
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
44
2026:KER:85765
members. Therefore, that principle is not applicable to the facts
of the case.
21. Senior Counsel, Adv. Elwin Peter also relied on this
Court's judgment in Saji D Anand's case (supra). The Counsel
relied on paragraph 9 of the above judgment. It will be better to
extract the same:
9. “In the background of the above, the first case to be
examined is with reference to the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund
Board. The Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Board is constituted
under the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1975. S.4 of the
said Act contemplates the establishment of Board. S.5 refers
to the constitution of Board. The petitioner in WP (C) No.
24099 of 2016 was nominated as a member of the Board as
representative of the employee. S.7 refers that the term of
office of members is three years. S.8 provides disqualifications
and removal which reads as follows:
"8. Disqualifications and Removal.-- (1) No person
shall be chosen as, or continue to be, a member of
the Board if he—
(a) is an officer or servant under the Board; or
(b) is an undischarged insolvent; or
(c) is of unsound mind; or
(d) has been convicted by a Criminal Court for an
offence involving moral turpitude, unless such
conviction has been set aside; or
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
45
2026:KER:85765
(e) is in arrears of any sum due to the Board.
(2) The Government may remove from office any
member who—
(a) is or has become subject to any of the
disqualifications mentioned in sub-section (1) or
(b) is absent without leave of the Board for more
than three consecutive meetings of the Board."
There is no explicit or implicit provision to invoke the doctrine
of pleasure by the Government to remove or terminate the
membership of a non - official nominee before the term is over.
When a statutory provision is explicit as regard to the manner
of removal, it must be presumed that the Legislature has taken
away powers to invoke pleasure doctrine to remove a member
from the Board / Corporation otherwise than in accordance with
the statutory provision. In the absence of any statutory
provision to invoke the doctrine of pleasure for removal of the
nominee, it can be only in accordance with S.8.”
22. This Court considered the explicit and implicit provision
to invoke the Doctrine of Pleasure by the Government to remove
or terminate the membership of a non-official nominee before
the term is over. This Court observed that when a statutory
provision is explicit as regards the manner of removal, it must
be presumed that the legislature has taken away the power to
invoke the pleasure doctrine to remove a member from the
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
46
2026:KER:85765
Board/Corporation otherwise than in accordance with the
statutory provisions. It is also observed that, in the absence of
any statutory provision to invoke the doctrine of pleasure for
removal of the nominee, removal can occur only in accordance
with Sec. 8 of the statute concerned. Sec. 8 of the Statute
mentioned in Saji D Anand's case (supra) is extracted in
paragraph 9 of that judgment. I see no such corresponding
provision in the Act, 2021 regarding disqualification and removal
of nominated members. This Court made the above observation
in paragraph 9 of Saji D Anand's case (supra), based on Sec.8
of the Statute mentioned in that judgment. But, such a provision
is not available in the Act, 2021 and therefore, according to me,
that dictum is also not applicable to the facts of this case.
23. Saji D Anand's case (supra) was taken up in appeal,
and the Writ Appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this
Court in State of Kerala v. Saji D Anand and another [2018
KHC 28]. As I mentioned earlier, since the Act 2021 contains no
corresponding provision like Sec. 8 of the Act mentioned in that
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
47
2026:KER:85765
judgment, this Court need not consider the dictum laid down by
the Division Bench in Saji D Anand's case (supra). The Senior
Counsel, Adv. Elwin Peter also relied on paragraph 2 of the
judgment of this Court in All Kerala Private College Teachers
Association's case (supra), which is also extracted hereunder:
2.“We may briefly examine the relevant provisions of the
Two Acts. The primary object, of establishing a university by
an Act of the State Legislature, is to make the institution an
independent autonomous authority with a view to minimise
the outside interference in its functioning. Dr. S.
Radhakrishnan, in the University Education Commission's
Report 1950 observed as under :-
"..... We must resist, in the interest of our
democracy, the trend towards the Governmental
domination of the educational process. ...... Higher
education is undoubtedly an obligation of the State
but State aid is not to be confused with State
control over academic policy and practices. Our
Universities should be released from the control of
politics ....."
24. The Senior Counsel relied on the above judgment only
to show that the Government domination of the educational
process is to be deprecated. There is no dispute of that fact. But
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
48
2026:KER:85765
here, the Act, 2021 gives the Government power to nominate
eminent persons as syndicate members under Secs. 25 and 26.
Therefore, when the Act empowers the Government to nominate
eminent persons, and when there is no specific provision in the
Act, 2021 fixing the term of the nominated members, I am of
the considered opinion that withdrawing the nomination by the
Government cannot be treated as a Governmental domination of
the matters relating to the University. Therefore, that decision is
also not applicable to the facts of this case. The Senior Counsel
also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Cheviti
Venkanna Yadav v. State of Telangana and Others [2017
(1) SCC 283]. The Senior Counsel relied on paragraph Nos. 32
of the above judgment, which is extracted hereunder:
32. The word 'appointment' has been substituted by
'nomination'. It is an appointment by nomination. It is from
certain categories for the purpose of representation. It is not
appointment as the word ordinarily connotes. The legislature,
in its wisdom, has substituted the word 'appointment' and
made it 'nomination with retrospective effect'. To enable it to
curtail or reduce the term, the procedure for removal remains
intact. A nominee can go from office by efflux of time when
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
49
2026:KER:85765
the period is over. That is different than when he is removed.
A nominated member, in praesenti, can also be removed by
adopting the procedure during the period. Otherwise, he shall
continue till his term is over; and the term is one year. The
plea of vested right is like building a castle in Spain. It has no
legs to stand upon and, therefore, we unhesitatingly repel the
said submission.” (Underline supplied)
25. According to me, the above dictum is also not
applicable in the light of my finding that no term is fixed for the
nomination of the members of the syndicate as per the Act,
2021, whereas a term is fixed in the nomination mentioned in
the above judgment and in such circumstances the apex court
laid down the above dictum.
26. Adv. Girija appeared for the university relied on an
unreported judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated
23.01.2025 in WA No. 632/2024 (GMRES). It would be better to
extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:
“6.3 This High Court in H. Rajaiah and others Vs. State
of Karnataka, 2000 (6) Kar.LJ 401 addressed the very issue
of premature removal of nominated members before the
completion of the tenure in the context of the provisions of
Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 to
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
50
2026:KER:85765
specifically observe that the intensity of judicial review in
respect of decision relating to making or unmaking the
nomination, is very low. According to this High Court, as
observed in H. Rajaiah (supra), Doctrine of Pleasure could not
be viewed just as a relic of arbitrary power of absolute
monarch but, it has its own purpose which empowers the
State Government to remove a government servant from the
office when such government servant is intended to hold the
office at the desire and pleasure of the government.
6.3.1 It was stated that in India the recognition of the
doctrine is found incorporated in the provisions of Articles
76(4), 156(1), 165(3) and 311 of the Constitution. It was
held that the Doctrine and the amplitude of power available
thereunder cannot be viewed to be violative of Right to
Equality. This Court in H. Rajaiah (supra) relied on the very
decision of the Supreme Court in Om Narain Agarwal (supra)
and highlighted the nature of the nominations,
"Such then is the nature of the nominations. They are made
without following any transparent or objective process of
selection of those vying for such nominations. They hold
good during the pleasure of the Government and are
therefore tenuous lacking certainty or security of tenure.
The intensity of review of any decision relating to the
making or unmaking or a nomination has thus to be low. ..."
(para 15) ”
27. Detailed contentions were raised by both sides
regarding the 'doctrine of pleasure' which is dealt in the
above decision also. According to the Senior Counsel,
Adv. Elwin Peter, there is no specific provision in the
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
51
2026:KER:85765
Act, 2021, for the Government to invoke the powers under the
principle 'Doctrine of Pleasure'. On the other hand, counsel for
the respondents submitted that the 'Doctrine of Pleasure' can be
implied, and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in WP No.
10851/2023 (S-RES) is also relied upon. The relevant portion of
the judgment dated 28.10.2025 in WP No. 10851/2023 is
extracted hereunder:
“9. There is no dispute that the petitioners were
nominated as Senate Members of the Nursing Council
as per the notification dated 28.03.2023;
subsequently, there was a change in the administration
and the Government has issued a notification on
24.05.2023 cancelling the nomination of the
petitioners. I have perused Section 3(2)(c), of the Act
of 1961, wherein the State Government, by
notification, can nominate three persons, for Karnataka
Nursing Council as per Section 3 of the Act of 1961,
where, at least one person shall be a woman, which
reads as follows:
"3. Establishment, incorporation and constitution of
Council.-
(2) The Council shall consist of the following
members:-
(c) as nominated members, three persons to be
nominated by the State Government of whom at least
one person shall be a woman: Provided that the
members to be elected under clause (b) shall in
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
52
2026:KER:85765
respect of the first Council, be nominated by the
State Government from persons who in the opinion of
the State Government are entitled to be included in
the electorate or body concerned and shall hold office
for a period of two years."
Pursuant to the said provision, the petitioners were
appointed as Senate Members of the Nursing Council.
There is no provision prescribed under the Act for
removal of the nominated members of the Nursing
Council. In the absence of any provision under the Act
of 1961, Section 16 of the Act of 1897 which deals with
the power to appoint, which would include the power to
suspend or dismiss, reads as follows:
"16. Power to appoint to include power to suspend or
dismiss.—Where, by any Central Act or Regulation, a
power to make any appointment is conferred, then,
unless a different intention appears, the authority
having for the time being power to make the
appointment shall also have power to suspend or
dismiss any person appointed whether by itself or
any other authority in exercise of that power."
Section 16 of the Act of 1897 provides that if a person
is appointed under any Act or Regulation, the authority
may have a power to suspend or dismiss any person
appointed. Also, Section 21 of the Act of 1897 deals
with the power to issue, to include, to add to, amend,
vary or rescind the notifications, orders, rules or bye-
laws, which reads as follows:
"21. Power to issue, to include power to add to,
amend, vary or rescind notifications, orders, rules or
byelaws.—Where, by any Central Act or Regulations
a power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-
laws is conferred, then that power includes a power,
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
53
2026:KER:85765
exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like
sanction and conditions (if any), to add to, amend,
vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or
bye-laws so issued."
So, Section 21 empowers an authority which has the
power to issue a notification, has undoubted power to
rescind or modify the notification in the like manner.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rasid Javed
(Supra) held that, the authority which has the power to
issue a notification, has the power to rescind or modify
the notification in the like manner. Though the
nominating authority i.e., the State Government issued
the notification nominating the petitioners as members
to the Council, subsequently, in view of the change in
the Government, the nominated authority withdrawn
the membership of the petitioners as members of the
Council. In view of the same, the petitioners are
required to accept the position of law, gracefully, as
there is no requirement to permit either with or without
compliance of the principles of natural justice, like in
the case of appointment of the post. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Cheviti Venkanna Yadav
vs. State of Telangana and Others, held as follows:
“33. The aforesaid argument suffers from a fallacy.
The members were not elected. They were not
appointed by any kind of selection. They were
chosen by the State Government from certain
categories. The status of the members has been
changed by amending the word “appointed” by
substituting it with the word “nominated”. Thus, the
legislature has retrospectively changed the meaning.
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
54
2026:KER:85765
In our considered opinion, by virtue of the
amendment, the term which has been reduced for a
nominated member stands on a different footing. In
Om Narain Agarwal v. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur
[Om Narain Agarwal v. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur,
(1993) 2 SCC 242] (SCC p. 254, para 11) it has
been held that if an appointment has been made
initially by nomination, there can be no violation of
any provision of the Constitution in case the
legislature authorised the State Government to
terminate such appointment at its pleasure and to
nominate new members in their place. It is because
the nominated members do not have the will or
authority of any residents of the Municipal Board
behind them as may be present in the case of an
elected member. The Court further observed that
such provision neither offends any article of the
Constitution nor is the same against any public policy
or democratic norms enshrined in the Constitution.
34. The word “appointment” has been substituted
by “nomination”. It is an appointment by nomination.
It is from certain categories for the purpose of
representation. It is not appointment as the word
ordinarily connotes. The legislature, in its wisdom,
has substituted the word “appointment” and made it
“nomination with retrospective effect”. To enable it
to curtail or reduce the term, the procedure for
removal remains intact. A nominee can go from
office by efflux of time when the period is over. That
is different than when he is removed. A nominated
member, in praesenti, can also be removed by
adopting the procedure during the period. Otherwise,
he shall continue till his term is over; and the term is
one year. The plea of vested right is like building a
castle in Spain. It has no legs to stand upon and,
therefore, we unhesitatingly repel the said
submission.”
It is settled legal proposition that the right created by
the statute cannot be curtailed by such a statute and in
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
55
2026:KER:85765
the absence of some other competent right under the
statute or under the Constitution of India, a right
proposed cannot be claimed. It is equally settled legal
proposition that the doctrine of pleasure can be implied
if read in a provision and once the doctrine of pleasure
is applicable, neither the principles of the natural
justice nor question of giving an opportunity before
removal could arise and does not provide any provision
for removal of the members of the Nursing Council. In
the absence of the specific provisions which provides
for removal of the members of the Nursing Council,
Section 16 and Section 21 of the Act of 1897 would
apply. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
The State of Karnataka Vs. Dr. Deepthi Bhava and
Others held that, in the absence of any specific
provision 4 WA No.617/2021, disposed of on
25.09.2021 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
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994
(which speak about the constitution of senate and
syndicate) have to be read along with Sections 16 and
21 of the Act of 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. As observed above, when the Act of 1961
does not contain a clause to remove the members of
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
56
2026:KER:85765
Senate or Syndicate, Sections 16 and 21 of the Act of
1897 together include the power to nominate carries
with it power to remove. Applying the Sections 16 and
21 of the Act of 1897, the State Government has
issued the notification cancelling the notification issued
earlier by virtue of impugned notification. The issue
involved in the instant case is fully covered by the
order of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Pallavi Vastrad (Supra). This Court, referring to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has held that,
removal of the petitioner is non-stigmatic and non-
punitive. From the perusal of the impugned
notification, it does not reflect that the said notification
is stigmatic and punitive. Hence, it is at the pleasure of
the Government to nominate or remove the members
from the Council. Considering the order passed by this
Court in the case of Pallavi Vastrad (Supra), I do not
find any ground to entertain the writ petition.”
(underline supplied)
28. I respectfully agree with the principle laid down by the
Karnataka High Court. In the light of the judgment of the Apex
Court relied upon by the Single Judge of the Karnataka High
Court, it is a settled legal position that the “doctrine of pleasure”
can be implied if it is clear, when read into a provision, and once
the doctrine of pleasure is applicable, neither the principles of
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
57
2026:KER:85765
natural justice nor the question of giving an opportunity before
removal would arise.
29. But, we need not go to the above provision also,
because this Court already found that no specific term is
mentioned for the members nominated to the syndicate as per
the Act 2021. Moreover, even if the contention of the petitioner
is accepted that there is no provision giving the right to the
Government to withdraw the nomination of an eminent person
as a syndicate member, based on the doctrine of pleasure in the
Act, 2021, there is an implied provision like that in this case
because no term is fixed for the nomination of the Syndicate
members in Sections 25 and 26 of the Act, 2021. Adv. Girija
also relied on some other judgments while arguing the matter. I
think those judgments need not be discussed in detail in light of
the above discussion. Similarly, the other contentions raised by
Adv. Girija also need not be discussed in detail, in light of my
finding that no specific term is mentioned for the nominated
Syndicate members under Sections 25 and 26 of the Act, 2021.
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
58
2026:KER:85765
Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing
to interfere with the impugned orders withdrawing the
nomination of the petitioners.
30. Before parting, I have to add the following also.
st
The 1 petitioner was the former Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the
Kerala University, and the others are also “eminent persons”
according to the Government, and hence the then government
nominated them as Syndicate members as per Ext. P1 and P2.
The “eminent persons” should always behave “eminently”. Since
I found that no statutory term is fixed for the nominated
Syndicate members, and no imputations are alleged against the
petitioners in Ext. P4 and P5 for withdrawing their nomination,
they have no legal right under the statute to continue for four
years. The withdrawal of nomination does not mean that they
are not “eminent persons”. They will continue to be eminent
persons, and the impugned orders do not degrade or insult their
“eminence”. In my view, they should accept the withdrawal of
their nomination as Syndicate members with grace; a graceful
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
59
2026:KER:85765
acceptance would be commendable and would only enhance the
“eminence” of the petitioners. I leave it there.
The upshot of the above discussion is that I see
absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned orders
because no legal or statutory rights of the petitioners are
violated by withdrawing their nomination as Syndicate members.
Hence, this writ petition has no merit. Accordingly, this writ
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
JV/DM/SSG/SKS/A J
Judgment reserved 27.10.2026
Date of Judgment 11.11.2026
Judgment dictated 02.11.2026
Draft Judgment placed 03.11.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 11.11.2026
WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
CNR : KLHC010601822026
60
2026:KER:85765
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. HEDN-
B2/4/2025-HEDN DATED 14.03.2025.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.
AD.A2/1/200/SYND/SOU/2025/N2 DATED
16.04.2025.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE DECISION
REPORTED IN 2014 (1) KLT 520.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) NO.
30/2026/HEDN DATED 01.08.2026 ISSUED
BY THE GOVERNMENT WITHDRAWING THE
NOMINATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS AND
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SYNDICATE OF THE
UNIVERSITY AND NOMINATING THE
RESPONDENTS 5 TO 13 AS THE NEW MEMBERS
OF THE SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
AD.A2/1/200/SYND/SOU/2026 DATED
01.08.2026 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 True copy of the Order G.O.(P) No.
36/2026/HEDN dated 14.08.2026 issued
by the Government.
EXHIBIT P7 True copy of the Government Order G.O.
(P) No. 38/2026/HEDN dated 24.08.2026.