Where Statute Fixes No Term For Nominated Members, Doctrine Of Pleasure Is Implied: Kerala High Court Upholds Withdrawal Of SNGOU Syndicate Nominations
Sections 25 and 26 of the 2021 Act set only an outer limit for reconstituting the Syndicate and confer no four-year term on nominees; the Court also said “eminent persons” should accept withdrawal with grace.
Justice P.V Kunhikrishnan, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that where a statute prescribes no term for members nominated by the Government to a university authority, the doctrine of pleasure is implied, and the Government may withdraw such nominations. The Court dismissed a writ petition by three nominated “eminent persons” of the Syndicate of Sree Narayana Guru Open University, and upheld the order that withdrew their nominations and nominated others in their place without stating any reason.
Sections 25 and 26 of the Sree Narayana Guru Open University Act, 2021, the Court held, only require the Syndicate to be reconstituted every four years and make members’ terms co-terminus with it. They fix an outer limit for reconstitution and do not give nominated members a four-year term. The Court contrasted the Act with other Kerala university statutes that expressly fix a term, and held that the petitioners had no legal or statutory right to continue for four years. It therefore found no statutory right had been violated and no ground to interfere.
A Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed, “…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…”.
“…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…”, it further noted.
Senior Advocate Elvin Peter P.J. appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate George Poonthottam appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners were among eight eminent persons nominated to the Syndicate by Government Order dated March 14, 2025. The first petitioner is a former Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Kerala University. By G.O. dated August 1, 2026, the Government, stating that it had decided to review the nominations, withdrew them with immediate effect and nominated respondents 5 to 13 in their place. No reason was given.
The petitioners contended that their term ran until 2029, that the Act contains no power to withdraw nominations unlike other university statutes, and that the unreasoned order was arbitrary and violated Article 14. The State relied on Section 16 of the General Clauses Act and State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud & Another 2022 (3) KHC 310. The University relied on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act and the distinction between appointment and nomination.
Comparing the 2021 Act with twelve other Kerala university statutes, the Bench noted that most expressly fix a four-year term for Syndicate members, while the 2021 Act does not. It held that this is a matter of legislative wisdom and the Court cannot step into the shoes of the legislature. It held that Section 16 of the General Clauses Act deals with appointment, not nomination.
It distinguished State of Kerala v. Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan 1997 KHC 155, Saji D. Anand and Cheviti Venkanna Yadav v. State of Telangana and Others (2017), since the statutes in those cases fixed a term or prescribed a mode of removal. It also held that withdrawal under a power conferred by the Act cannot be treated as Government domination of the University.
The Court observed that eminence alone cannot confer an indefeasible right to continue in office without statutory backing. It noted that the impugned orders contained no imputation against the petitioners and did not reflect on their eminence.
Cause Title: Prof. Dr. P.P. Ajayakumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:85765)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Elvin Peter P.J., with Advocates K.R. Ganesh, Adarsh Babu C.S. and Reshma Prakash Kurian
Respondents: State Attorney Anoop V. Nair, Government Pleader Girija K. Gopal, Advocate Nisha George, Senior Advocate George Poonthottam., Kavya Varma M. M., P.A. Mohammed Shah, Addl. Advocate General.