LAWS(KER)-2016-9-104

SUNNY K GEORGE; AJIS BEN MATHEWS; M E KURIAKOSE; SATHEESH KOCHUPARAMBIL; MADAVANA BALAKRISHNA PILLAI; BABU MICHAEL; C H ABDUL LATHEEF; TOMY JOSEPH; K S INDU Vs. STATE OF KERALA; MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY; P K HARIKUMAR; TOMICHAN JOSEPH; V A PRAVEENKUMAR; SHERAFUDEEN K ; AJI C PANICKER; M S MURALI; B PADMANABHA PILLAI, PRINCIPAL; P K PADMAKUMAR; KRISHNADAS K

Decided On September 29, 2016
SUNNY K GEORGE; AJIS BEN MATHEWS; M E KURIAKOSE; SATHEESH KOCHUPARAMBIL; MADAVANA BALAKRISHNA PILLAI; BABU MICHAEL; C H ABDUL LATHEEF; TOMY JOSEPH; K S INDU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA; MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY; P K HARIKUMAR; TOMICHAN JOSEPH; V A PRAVEENKUMAR; SHERAFUDEEN K ; AJI C PANICKER; M S MURALI; B PADMANABHA PILLAI, PRINCIPAL; P K PADMAKUMAR; KRISHNADAS K Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in these writ petitions separately challenge the action of the Government in withdrawing the nomination of members of the Syndicate and appointing certain others in their respective places.

(2.) The short facts involved in the writ petitions would disclose that the petitioners were members of the Syndicate of Mahatma Gandhi University nominated by the Government under Section 21 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act. The petitioners were nominated in January, 2016 under the category of other members as detailed in Clauses (a), (c) and (d) of Section 21. Ext.P1 is the notification dated 18/1/2016. The Government in the State changed in May, 2016. Though a meeting was scheduled on 23/5/2016, it had to be adjourned to 16/6/2016 on account of obstruction created by certain persons. Petitioners had to approach this Court by filing WP (C) No. 20133/2016 seeking police protection for participating in the meeting of the Syndicate. In the meantime, Government as per Ext.P3 letter dated 23/6/2016 intimated the Registrar of the University that the existing nominated members including the petitioners are replaced by a new set of people. Pursuant to Ext.P3, University issued a fresh notification which is produced as Ext.P4 dated 23/6/2016. Petitioner in WP(C) No. 21522/2016 challenges Exts.P3 and P4. Same orders are challenged in the other writ petitions.

(3.) The main contention urged by the petitioners is that the term of appointment to the office as members of the Syndicate is four years and therefore, the subsequent notification is arbitrary and illegal. Further, it is contended that Section 22(3) does not give an unbridled power to the Government to change the nominated members merely for the reason that there is change in Government.