Eminent persons treated like dirt, painted with political brush regardless of academic excellence: Karnataka High Court reinstates RGUHS members

The Karnataka High Court recently directed the reinstatement of members of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) who were removed owing to political bias after a change in dispensation in the State [Deepthi Bava and ors v. State of Karnataka]..The petitioners before the Court were seven nominated members from the Syndicate and the Senate of RGUHS who were removed from their posts before the expiry of their tenure laid down in the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994.."It is sorry to see that the appointment of such persons has resulted in litigations only because such people are sought to be painted with a political brush irrespective of their academic excellence. It can be safely presumed that “eminent people”, as mandated in the provisions would remain eminent and their eminence would not be diminished by their political affiliations or by the fact that they have been identified as member of any political dispensation or party," read the judgment pronounced by Justice G Narendar..The Court observed that even academics are being enslaved to power in posts and appointments in such posts are often changed to suit political considerations. "The problem lies in the fact that even academics are being enslaved to the delusions of so-called power in posts, which demand academic excellence. Appointments are sought to be changed to suit political considerations resulting, even in eminent persons being treated with disdain. If institutions of excellence are being run in such a manner, it only speaks of volumes about the state off affairs in such institutions and is a reflection of the civil society.".These rather pertinent observations were made while setting aside an order of the government dated October 16, 2020, removing five nominated members of the Syndicate and two nominated members of the Senate. In their place, the State had nominated seven other persons..Senior Advocates PS Rajagopal and Udaya Holla, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the order impugned is per se violative of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as the High Court.It was further submitted that as the appointments being for a fixed term of 3 years, the members could not have been removed without assigning any reasons and without affording an opportunity of hearing..Opposing the plea, the counsel appearing for the State government said that the appointment of the petitioners is governed by the doctrine of pleasure and the removal was in the interest of the administration.However, these submissions did not warrant merit, according to the Court."It appears to be a farcical exercise and a lame duck excuse to get rid of persons who probably are not of the same feather but are appointed by a dispensation bearing different colours", said the Court..The Single Judge further pointed out that nothing was placed to demonstrate that the persons who have replaced the petitioners are of pre-eminence or more eminent than the petitioners. Further, the Court said,"In the absence of any valid and reasonable ground, the removal on the ground of exercise of pleasure Doctrine is rendered arbitrary. That apart, it is apparent that the removal came about and after the change in the Ruling dispensation and hence a political bias also cannot be ruled out. In that view of the matter, the same amounts to colourable exercise of power and stands vitiated on that ground also.".The Court also raised concern over the fact that in the field of academics, the educated class of the society is being treated like chattel, at the whims and fancies of the ruling class."Before parting with the writ petitions, this Court expressed anguish in the manner in which even the educated and professional class, who are not only highly educated but professionals are treated like chattels. Mere political exigencies or clamor for positions of power by the supporters of the ruling dispensation should not be a ground to disturb or revoke the appointment of qualified persons who even in the opinion of the Legislature, are persons of distinction and who have distinguished themselves in their respective field.".While parting with the order, the Court pointed out that RGUHS ideally should have been the first to stand up to such arbitrariness of the State."The institution should have been the first to stand up and tell the ruling class to eschew such arbitrariness and the damage such whimsical actions causes to such institutions, whose only endeavour is excellence. It is hoped that this order would be seen and appreciated in true spirit."With these observations, the Court directed the University to reinstate the seven persons to their posts. It also dismissed the University's argument that given the fact that only a short time remains of the petitioners' tenures, they should not be reinstated."The plea of the University that in view of the fact that short term remains, the petitioners not to be granted reinstatement cannot be appreciated for the reason that the petitioners who have been unceremoniously removed, should be allowed to leave with their heads held high. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent University to ensure reinstatement of the petitioners in their posts and allow the petitioners to complete their term in a dignified manner.".[Read Judgement]