High Court of Karnataka
The Karnataka High Court restored the appointment of an advocate to the post of “Additional District Administration Advocate”, setting aside the state government’s order recalling his appointment within 24 hours only on the ground that the Law Minister had ordered another advocate to be appointed on the recommendation of the MLA.
The appointment made after due process was canceled the very next day, not for administrative reasons, not for legal insufficiency, but only because of a sudden change of mind resting on the minister’s tippani (note).
“If such caprice is permitted by judicial shelter, then the pleasure doctrine would be transformed into an instrument of unbridled executive caprice, reducing constitutional guarantees to rhetoric. This court cannot be a mute spectator to such executive idleness. Judicial intervention in such cases becomes not only appropriate but imperative,” the court observed.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Sunil of Athani in Belagavi district who was removed from the post of “Additional District Government Pleader”, XI Additional District and Sessions Court, Belagavi under the provisions of the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977.
The petitioner was appointed on 28th October 2025 and removed from the post on 29th October on the basis of a communication from the Minister for Law, Justice and Human Rights who directed to appoint one DK Thakkannavar on the recommendation of MLA of Athani Constituency.
The court refused to accept the government’s contention that the petitioner’s post was a nominated post and was at the pleasure of the government, stating that it was not a nomination but an appointment under the 1977 rules and his removal was arbitrary as his appointment was illegal.
“When state action moves it quickly and without explanation, the crucial question is whether it is arbitrariness or arbitrariness, and the unequivocal and emphatic answer is “the action is arbitrary.”'” the court observed.
“Perhaps this is the first case in the annals of judicial review of such grossly arbitrary exercise of power; in 24 hours the state changes its own orders at its whim,” the court observed.
Published – 26 Nov 2025 20:47 IST
