Karnataka High Court Quashes Arbitrary Appointment, Upholds Constitutional Mandate

Court Restores Appointment of Additional District Government Pleader, Emphasizes Adherence to Article 14

In a landmark decision, the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, has set aside the abrupt and arbitrary appointment of a new Additional District Government Pleader (ADGP) within 24 hours of the initial appointment, emphasizing the importance of non-arbitrariness in State actions under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The case, titled "Sunil v. State of Karnataka," involved petitioner Sunil, who was appointed as ADGP for the XI Additional District and Sessions Court, Belagavi, on October 28, 2025. However, this appointment was rescinded the very next day, replacing him with the third respondent without any legal or administrative exigency.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered the judgment, highlighting the misuse of the doctrine of pleasure, which was inappropriately applied to justify the capricious withdrawal of Sunil's appointment. The court noted that the doctrine of pleasure, as outlined in the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, does not allow for arbitrary actions that violate constitutional mandates.

The judgment meticulously dissected the events leading to the rescission of the appointment, pointing out the absence of any legal or procedural deficiencies in Sunil's appointment process, which was duly conducted in accordance with Rule 26. The court observed that the withdrawal was solely based on a ministerial recommendation, without any substantial reasoning, reflecting an arbitrary exercise of power.

Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized that public power must not be exercised in a whimsical manner and that the Constitution mandates adherence to the principles of reasonableness and fairness. The court restored Sunil's appointment and directed that he be granted all consequential benefits, thereby reinforcing the constitutional safeguard against arbitrariness in executive actions.

The decision has been hailed as a reaffirmation of the judiciary's role in ensuring that executive actions align with constitutional principles, particularly Article 14, which prohibits arbitrary state actions. The ruling serves as a critical reminder to the government that all actions must withstand the scrutiny of constitutional discipline and not be subject to the whims of executive discretion.

Bottom Line:

The doctrine of pleasure under Rule 26 of the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, does not grant unfettered discretion to act arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously. Even appointments made under the doctrine of pleasure must adhere to the constitutional prohibition against arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Statutory provision(s):  

• - Article 14 of the Constitution of India  
• - Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, Rule 26  
• - Doctrine of Pleasure

Sunil v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka)(Dharwad Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2812558