Kerala HC Upholds Government’s Replacement of Sree Narayana Guru Open University Syndicate Nominees, Finds No Statutory Right to Four-Year Tenure

The petitioners were nominated by the Government in March 2025 as eminent-person members of the Syndicate of Sree Narayana Guru Open University under Section 25 of the Sree Narayana Guru Open University Act, 2021.

In August 2026, the Government withdrew their nominations and nominated others in their place; the University issued a consequential notification.

The petitioners challenged those orders, arguing that Section 26 entitled them to remain in office for the Syndicate’s four-year term and that the unexplained withdrawals were arbitrary and contrary to Article 14.

The respondents disputed that the Act guaranteed the nominees a four-year tenure

Sections 25 and 26 of the Sree Narayana Guru Open University Act, 2021 provide for the Syndicate’s composition and require its reconstitution every four years; Section 26(2) makes the term of non-ex-officio members co-terminous with the term of the Syndicate.

The Court treated the Act as not prescribing a specific tenure for Government-nominated members and held that the four-year reconstitution requirement did not itself confer an individual four-year right to continue.

Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 concerns the power to suspend or dismiss persons appointed; the Court considered it inapplicable because the case concerned nominations, not appointments.

The Court also referred to Section 21 of that Act, concerning the power to rescind or vary notifications and orders, but did not need to decide its application.

It distinguished State of Kerala v. Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan and Saji D. Anand because those cases involved statutory protections or fixed terms absent here.

It further relied on the principle that the doctrine of pleasure may be implied where the statutory scheme so indicates, while noting that it need not reach that question independently.

The Court read Sections 25 and 26 together and contrasted them with other university statutes that expressly prescribe a term for Syndicate members. It concluded that Section 26(1) sets the interval for reconstituting the Syndicate, while Section 26(2) links members’ tenure to the Syndicate’s term; neither provision, in the Court’s view, guaranteed these nominees four years in office.

As the Act contained no such fixed tenure and the nomination orders themselves specified none, the petitioners had no statutory right to continue for four years. The Court also found that the authorities’ reliance on appointment-related Section 16 did not apply to nominations, and distinguished precedents protecting nominees whose tenure was expressly fixed or whose removal was regulated by statute.

It therefore found no basis to interfere with the withdrawal orders.

The writ petition was dismissed.