- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43002 WP No. 10851 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 10851 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NAVEEN HERALD SIMONS AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: PRINCIPAL, SHANTA COLLEGE OF NURSING AND ALLIED HEALTH SCIENCES, CHIKKABALLAPUR, DIST- CHIKKABALLAPUR. 2. DR. SARVAMANGALA W/O A SRIKANTAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: PRINCIPAL, SRI. SAPTAGIRI INSTITUTE OF NURSING, HOSAPETE, TQ- HOSAPETE, DIST- VIJAYANAGAR 3. DR. BHAGWAN SAHAY MANGAL S/O RAMESHWAR PRASAD MANGAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, R/O NO.07, 1ST MAIN, ASHWATH NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH, R.M.V. EXTENSION, BENGALURU- 560 094 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GURUDEV I GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43002 WP No. 10851 of 2023 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (MEDICAL EDUCATION) VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 1 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY- 2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (MEDICAL EDUCATION), M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-1 3. THE NURSE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA NURSING COUNCIL, NO.71, NIGHTINGALE TOWERS, A STREET, 6TH CROSS, A.R.EXTENSION, NEAR MOVIELAND THEATER, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU- 560009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SMT. JYOTHI M. MARADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DT. 24.05.2023 BEARING NO. MED 355 MSF 2022 ISSUED BY THE R2 PRODUCED AS ANNX-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43002 WP No. 10851 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs: “a. Quash the impugned notification dated 24-5-2023 bearing No. MED 355 MSF 2022 issued by the Respondent NO. 2 produced as Annexure-E by issue of writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order or directions. b. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the present case including an order for costs may kindly be passed in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 2.1. The petitioners were nominated as Senate Members to the Nursing Council for 3 years, on 28.03.2023. After the assembly elections, the new Government which has come into power, issued a common notification dated 22.05.2023 stating that, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43002 WP No. 10851 of 2023 nominations to the post of President / Director / Members made by the previous Government for instrumentalities of the State stands cancelled. The Chief Secretary also issued a directive to that effect on 22.05.2023. A notification was issued on 24.05.2023, cancelling the nomination of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the notification dated 24.05.2023, vide Annexure-E, cancelling the nomination of the petitioners. 3. The State, filed a statement of objections contending that, the power of nomination under Section 3(2)(c) read with Section 5 of the Karnataka Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act, 1961 (‘Act of 1961’ for short) remains subject to the administrative discretion of the State Government. The petitioners' nomination was not pursuant to any selection process, nor did it confer any statutory tenure incapable of withdrawal. It is contended that, the impugned notification dated 24.05.2023 was issued by the Competent Authority pursuant to a valid policy directive. The petitioners were nominated under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43002 WP No. 10851 of 2023 Government notification dated 28.03.2023. Following a change in the administration, a uniform decision was taken by the Government to withdraw the non-permanent nominations made in various departments. The said notification issued by the Government is in accordance with law and hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Respondent No.3 filed a statement of objections contending that, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is contended that, in terms of Section 3(2)(c) of the Act of 1961, the members to be elected under Clause (b) of Section 3(2) of the Act, shall be in respect of the first Council, be nominated by the State Government from persons, who in the opinion of the State Government, are entitled be included in the electorate body concerned and shall hold office for two years. It is contended that, the impugned notification was issued only to comply the statutory provisions prescribed under the Act and those - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43002 WP No. 10851 of 2023 actions were taken in the exigency of the administrative purpose only. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for State and learned counsel for respondent No.3. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioners were nominated as Senate Members to the Nursing Council for three years and the said period has not expired. Meanwhile, the Government had issued a notification, canceling the nomination of the petitioners. The said notification is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on this ground, prays to allow the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned AGA submits that, there is no provision under the Act of 1961 for removal of nominated members. Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (‘Act of 1897’ for short) defines the power to appoint, includes the power to suspend or dismiss. By applying Section 16 of the Act of 1897, respondents No.1 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43002 WP No. 10851 of 2023 and 2 issued the impugned notification. Hence, she submits that, the Government has power to amend, vary and decide the notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws. Hence, she submits that, the action of respondents No.1 and 2 in issuing the impugned notification vide Annexure-E is in accordance with law. 7.1. To buttress her arguments, she has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rasid Javed and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another1 and also the order passed by this Court in the case of Pallavi Vastrad and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others2. She also submits that, the nomination of the petitioners is at the pleasure of the Government and the Government can remove the nominated persons. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the writ petition. 1 (2010) 7 SCC 781 2 WP No.11958/2023, disposed of on 08.11.2023 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43002 WP No. 10851 of 2023 8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43002 WP No. 10851 of 2023 shall be a woman: Provided that the members to be elected under clause (b) shall in 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 or dismiss any - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43002 WP No. 10851 of 2023 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 bye- laws.—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, 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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43002 WP No. 10851 of 2023 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 Others3, held as follows: 3 (2017) 1 SCC 283 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43002 WP No. 10851 of 2023 “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. 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 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43002 WP No. 10851 of 2023 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, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43002 WP No. 10851 of 2023 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 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 Others4 held that, in the absence of any specific provision 4 WA No.617/2021, disposed of on 25.09.2021 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43002 WP No. 10851 of 2023 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 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 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43002 WP No. 10851 of 2023 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. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, as devoid of merits. 11. In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending IAs, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1