JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The appellant, an IAS Officer in the Kerala Cadre, was sent on deputation to the Central Government in July, 2006 for a period of five years. However, before completion of his deputation-tenure with the Central Government, he was considered for appointment as the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, which is a new University set up in 2010 under the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). Among the three candidates considered for selection, the appellant came out successfully probably because besides the IAS, he holds a bachelor degree in Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry and has also experience as Director of Animal Husbandry in Government of India. On being selected for appointment as the Vice Chancellor of the University, the appellant's deputation was prematurally cancelled by the Central Government at his request and he was repatriated to the State cadre. On repatriation from the Central Government, the Government of Kerala vide Ext.P1 order dated 10/12/2010 placed the service of the appellant at the disposal of Animal Husbandry Department for being appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the new University. The Governor of the State as the Chancellor of the University issued Ext.P2 notification on 29/12/2010 appointing the appellant as the Vice Chancellor of the University for a period of five years from the date on which he joins the Office. The appellant as the first Vice Chancellor of the University appeared to the Chancellor to be the right man to give a good start to the University, which is reflected in the remarks made by the Chancellor in the appraisal report for the period from 03/01/2011 to 31/08/2011, produced as Ext.P7, wherein the Chancellor's remarks is as follows:- "His contribution in making University accomplished in so short a time-not-without his operation was exceptional. It could new have been excellent co-operation and leadership". However, trouble started to the appellant shortly thereafter, which according to the appellant is on account of a publication produced as Ext.P6 dated 10/10/2011 written by him in a local daily adversely and sarcastically commending on assignment of several high level positions by the Government to a single Senior IAS Officer in the State, simultaneously leading to inadequacies and inefficiencies in the administration. Shortly after publication of Ext.P6, the Government wide Ext.P3 dated 21/10/2011 stating "administrative reasons", advised the Governor to recall Appellant from the post of Vice Chancellor and requested handing over charge of Vice Chancellor to the Agricultural Production Commissioner until new Vice Chancellor is appointed. Accepting the recommendation of the Government, the Chancellor vide Ext.P4 dated 21/10/2011 cancelled his earlier notification appointing the Appellant as the Vice Chancellor and substituted him with the Additional Chief Secretary and the Agricultural Production Commissioner to exercise the powers of the Vice Chancellor till new Vice Chancellor is appointed. The appellant in the WP(C) filed before this Court challenged Exts.P3 & P4 as malafide and arbitrary and prayed for continuation in the Office as Vice Chancellor for the term for which he was appointed. However, the learned Single Judge upheld the orders of the Government and the Chancellor and dismissed the WP(C), against which this Writ Appeal is filed. As a result of this, the important post of Vice Chancellor of the new University is held as an additional charge by the Agricultural Production Commissioner while the appellant is put in some less important assignment in Government. 2. We have heard learned Senior counsel Shri.O.V.Radhakrishnan appearing for the appellant and learned Senior Government Pleader Shri.C.S.Manilal appearing for the State and learned Standing Counsel Shri.Millu Dandapani appearing for the University. 3. At the outset towards proof of the real reason for Appellant's removal from Vice Chancellor's post, the Senior counsel for the appellant brought to our notice the developments subsequent to the appellant's release from Vice Chancellor's position by producing disciplinary proceedings initiated wide Annexure I dated 09/12/2011 enclosing therewith the articles of charges levelled against the appellant on 18/11/2011 based on Ext.P6 article written by him in the newspaper. The specific case canvassed by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant is that Annexure I issued subsequent to the appellant's release from service should be considered by this Court as the real reason for Appellant's removal and to fortify this he has also relied on Ext.P13, by which the Indian Express in their publication dated 07/11/011 reported the Chief Secretary's statement that the State Cabinet was not happy with the article written by the appellant which led to the decision to remove him from the position of the Vice Chancellor of the new University. 4. 4. We have to necessarily consider the legality of the impugned orders with reference to the statutory provisions under which the same are issued. Section 12 of the Act provides the procedure for appointment of the Vice Chancellor, his conditions of service, procedure for removal etc.. For easy reference we extract hereunder Section 12 of the Act. "12. The Vice Chancellor:- (1) The Vice Chancellor shall be responsible for the duties allotted to him specifically by the Chancellor with the approval of the Board of Management or under this Act or Statutes and he shall preside over the meetings of the authorities of the University in the absence of the Chancellor. (2) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor from among the panel of names recommended by the Search Committee consisting of the-One following members, namely:- (i) member nominated by the chancellor; (ii) One member nominated by the Government; (iii) Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research or his nominee; (iv) President, Veterinary Council of India. The Chancellor shall appoint one of the members of the Committee to be the Chairman. (3) If the Chancellor doesnot approve any of the persons so recommended by the committee, he may call for fresh recommendation from the committee. (4) The committee shall submit a panel to the Chancellor, within such period as he may specify. The Chancellor shall with the concurrence of the Government, appoint one person as the Vice Chancellor. If the Committee fails to submit a panel within the period so specified, the Chancellor may appoint any person who he deems fit to be the Vice-Chancellor on the advice of the Government. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4) the first Vice Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendation of the Government. (6) No person shall be appointed as, or hold office of, the Vice Chancellor if he has attained the age of seventy years. (7) The Vice Chancellor shall, subject to the pleasure of the Chancellor and the provisions of sub-section (6), hold the office for a period of five years. The Vice Chancellor shall be eligible for a second term. However, the Vice Chancellor may, by writing under his hand addressed to the Chancellor, and after giving three months notice, resign his office. (7) The Vice Chancellor shall, subject to the pleasure of the Chancellor and the provisions of sub-section (6), hold the office for a period of five years. The Vice Chancellor shall be eligible for a second term. However, the Vice Chancellor may, by writing under his hand addressed to the Chancellor, and after giving three months notice, resign his office. (8) (i) The Chancellor shall have the power to remove the Vice Chancellor from office by an order in misconduct, mis-management of funds or willful writing on charges misappropriation, omission, refusal of to before out the provisions of this carry Act or Provided for abuse that powers vested on him: taking an action under this sub-section such charges shall be proved by an enquiry conducted by the Chancellor as provided in clause (ii).For under(ii)this section the Chancellor shall appoint a the purpose of holding an inquiry person who is or has been a Judge of the High court or the Supreme Court. The inquiry authority shall hold an inquiry after giving an opportunity to make representation by the Vice Chancellor and shall submit a report to the Chancellor. (9) The emoluments and other conditions of service of the Vice Chancellor shall be such as may be prescribed by Statutes. (10) When any temporary vacancy occurs in the office of Vice Chancellor or if the Vice Chancellor is, by reason of illness absence or for any other reason, unable to exercise the powers and perform the duties of his office, the Chancellor shall make necessary arrangements for exercising the powers of the Vice Chancellor." 5. As already stated, the University is a new one and the appellant was the first Vice Chancellor appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendation of the Government. Even though the Government adopted a selection procedure and from among the three short listed candidates, the appellant was selected and appointed, the said appointment was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under sub Section (2) of Section 12, which requires the Chancellor first to constitute a committee for selection and then to appoint with concurrence of Government one of the persons recommended by the Committee. So much so, the appellant's appointment as the first Vice Chancellor on the advice of the Government is and can only be under sub Section (5) of Section 12. So much so, the appellant's appointment as the first Vice Chancellor on the advice of the Government is and can only be under sub Section (5) of Section 12. The case of the appellant is that though he is the first Vice Chancellor, his appointment is for a period of 5 years as is clear from the notification issued appointing him; and premature release, if any, is possible only on proved grounds stated in sub Section (8) of Section 12 that too after conducting an enquiry in terms of the said provision. However, the Government has no case that the appellant's release is on grounds of any act of indiscipline or misconduct or any enquiry was conducted before the impugned orders releasing him from Vice Chancellor's post were issued. On the other hand, the Government got the order sustained before the learned Single Judge based on sub Section (7) of Section 12, which clearly states that appointment of Vice Chancellor by the Chancellor is at the pleasure of the Chancellor, and at any time by applying "pleasure doctrine" the appellant could be released from the Vice Chancellor's post. The respondents also placed reliance on sub Section (5) wherein it is stated that the first Vice Chancellor is appointed by the Chancellor on recommendation of the Government which could be recalled again on the advice of the Government. 6. Several decisions are cited on behalf of both sides in support of the rival contentions, particularly on the application of "doctrine of pleasure". However, we do not think there is any need to go to all the decisions because a Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision in P.B.Singhal v. Union of India and Another, reported in 2010 (6) SCC 331 exhaustively dealt with the topic and also the limited scope of judicial review in matters of appointment and release by applying the "pleasure doctrine", though rendered in the context of removal of a State Governor. For the purpose of deciding this Writ Appeal, we have to only refer to paragraph 22 and the conclusions summarised by the Honourable Supreme Court in para 83 of the above decision. "22. There is a distinction between the doctrine of pleasure as it existed in a feudal setup and the doctrine of pleasure in a democracy governed by the rule of law. "22. There is a distinction between the doctrine of pleasure as it existed in a feudal setup and the doctrine of pleasure in a democracy governed by the rule of law. In a nineteenth century feudal set-up unfettered power and discretion of the Crown was not an alien concept. However, in a democracy governed by rule of law, where arbitrariness in any form is eschewed, no Government or authority has the right to do what it pleases. The doctrine of pleasure does not mean a licence to act arbitrarily, capriciously or whimsically. It is presumed that discretionary powers conferred in absolute and unfettered terms on any public authority will necessarily and obviously be exercised reasonably and for the public good." xxx xxx xxx "83. (i) xxx xxx (ii) Though no reason need be assigned for discontinuance of the pleasure resulting in removal, the power under Article 156(1) cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner. The power will have to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons. The compelling reasons are not restricted to those enumerated by the petitioner (that is physical/mental disability, corruption and behavior unbecoming of a Governor) but are of a wider amplitude. would depend what upon would be compelling reasons the facts and circumstances of each case. xxx xxx xxx (iv) As there is no need to assign reasons, any removal as the consequence of withdrawal of the pleasure will be assumed to be valid and will be open to only a limited judicial review. aggrieved person is able to demonstrate prima-facie the that his removal was either arbitrary, mala fide, capricious or whimsical, the Court will call upon the Union Government to disclose to the Court, the material upon which the President had taken the decision to withdraw the pleasure. If the Union Government does not disclose any reason, or if the reasons disclosed are found to be irrelevant, arbitrary, whimsical or mala fide, the Court will interfere. However, the court will not interfere merely on the ground that a different view is possible or that the material or reasons are insufficient." (emphasis supplied) 7. If the Union Government does not disclose any reason, or if the reasons disclosed are found to be irrelevant, arbitrary, whimsical or mala fide, the Court will interfere. However, the court will not interfere merely on the ground that a different view is possible or that the material or reasons are insufficient." (emphasis supplied) 7. Going by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court above stated, there can be no controversy that the pleasure doctrine is not an absolute one, which could be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or whimsically, which obviously means that the Court in exercise of it's limited jurisdiction of judicial review will be obliged to interfere if the action complained is tainted by any of the vices stated above. We therefore proceed to consider whether the removal of the appellant from the post of Vice Chancellor is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable act done by the Government, that too against public interest. 8. Obviously, by virtue of Section 12(5) of the Act, the choice of first Vice Chancellor is that of the Government and the Chancellor is bound to go by the recommendation of the Government in the appointment of first Vice Chancellor. Even though the appointment of the first Vice Chancellor can be a stopgap arrangement until regular Vice Chancellor is appointed in terms of the procedure contained in Section 12(2) of the Act, there is nothing to indicate that the first Vice Chancellor chosen by the Government and appointed by the Chancellor also cannot be given the normal tenure of 5 years as provided under Section 12(7) of the Act. Going by the conduct of the respondents we have to consider whether the appointment of the appellant was on a stopgap arrangement or whether the Government wanted him as the first Vice Chancellor to continue for the full term of five years. 9. We have already noticed that the appellant while serving the Central Government on deputation for 5 years was recalled to the State service after being selected from among three candidates, for appointment as the Vice Chancellor of the University. It may also be noticed that the appellant's qualification i.e. degree in Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry and his experience as the Director of Animal Husbandry in Government of India would have given him preference over others in the selection process for selection of Vice Chancellor of the Veterinary and Animal Sciences University. It may also be noticed that the appellant's qualification i.e. degree in Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry and his experience as the Director of Animal Husbandry in Government of India would have given him preference over others in the selection process for selection of Vice Chancellor of the Veterinary and Animal Sciences University. Admittedly, the appellant's appointment under the orders issued by the Chancellor is for a full term of five years in terms of Section 12(7) of the Act. Therefore, we have to consider the legality of the impugned orders withdrawing the appellant from the post of Vice Chancellor of the University as a premature termination from a tenure-post. 10. We are constrained to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the revocation of the appellant's appointment prematurely as the Vice Chancellor is not for any administrative reasons as claimed by the State. The documents produced as Annexures I & II clearly show that soon after the impugned orders recalling the appellant from the post of Vice Chancellor, the Government levelled charges against him for initiating disciplinary action which is only based on Ext.P6 article written by him in the news paper sarcastically commending upon Senior IAS Officers holding several posts on charge basis. Further, the Indian Express news paper published on 07/11/2011, produced as Ext.P13, clearly shows that the Chief Secretary has explained the recall of the appellant from the post of Vice Chancellor as attributable to Ext.P6 publication made by him in the news paper. So much so, "the administrative reasons" stated by the Government as reason for recalling the appellant from the post of Vice Chancellor of the University is only a camouflage and make believe and not the real reason which is obviously Ext.P6 publication. Our conclusion is reinforced by the inability of the Government to explain as to what is the administrative reason or exigency in service recalling the Head of the University, which is an important post particularly when the University was being set up under the leadership of the appellant, whose work is appreciated by the Chancellor in no unequivocal terms stated in the confidential report. The respondents also have not explained as to which sensitive post needed to be filled up so urgently by the appellant by recalling him from the post like Head of a newly set up University, particularly when the Appellant was selected by virtue of his qualification and experience in the same field of operation of the University. We, therefore, hold that the facts and circumstances clearly establish that the act of recalling the appellant from the post of Vice Chancellor of the University is not for any bonafide administrative reason but is tainted by prejudice and is certainly a stigma, if not a virtual punishment. We do not wish to commend upon the legality or propriety or correctness of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant vide Annexure I subsequent to his withdrawal from the post of Vice Chancellor of the University. The respondents are free to proceed with disciplinary proceedings initiated. However, in our view, a democratic Government should not be over sensitive to criticism and react in a manner detrimental to public interest by removing the head of an Institution that too in it's infancy only to be under managed by someone on additional charge. We are afraid whether the Government is challenging and trying to disprove Appellant's theory covered by Ext.P6 publication by substituting full time Vice Chancellor of the Veterinary University and by replacing him by Additional Chief Secretary on additional charge basis. 11. Even though learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant could not be removed within the period of five years for which he is appointed as the first Vice Chancellor, we are unable to uphold this contention for the reason that the appellant's appointment was made by the Chancellor under Section 12(5) as the first Vice Chancellor on the recommendation of the Government. We referred to the selection process, in which the appellant got selected, only to find out whether the Government intended to appoint him as the Vice Chancellor of the University for the full tenure of five years and not for deciding whether the Government enjoys the power to recall him during his tenure as the first Vice Chancellor of the University. The appellant being a member of the IAS, can always be recalled by the Government for administrative reasons more so when his appointment as the first Vice Chancellor on recommendation of the Government is under Section 12(5) of the Act. We agree with the Senior Government Pleader who contended that the pleasure doctrine under Section 12(7) applies for appointments under Section 12 (5) in the sense that if for any bonafide administrative reason, the Government wants the appellant to come back and join any Department of the Government, they are always free to recall him by making recommendation to the Chancellor to that effect. This is because the appointment of the first Vice Chancellor by the Chancellor based on recommendation by the Government will hold good as long as the Government stands by the recommendation. In other words, the Government can always recall their nominee after being appointed as the first Vice Chancellor, no matter the appointment was for the full term of five years under Section 12(7) of the Act. However, such an action on the part of the Government could be sustained only if it is bonafide and not when it is tainted as arbitrary or capricious or whimsical. Even though learned Senior counsel for the appellant has referred to several judgments of the High Court also explaining the pleasure doctrine, we do not think there is any need to go into all those decisions because we have clearly found that the decision of the Government implemented by the Chancellor in recalling the appellant from the post of Vice Chancellor is an arbitrary and whimsical action, obviously on being offended by Ext.P6 article published by the appellant and is against public interest. Needless to mention that when a person is selected for appointment after adopting a process of selection based on relative merit of the candidates and when the appointment so made is for a particular tenure, there will be no justification to recall the person so appointed except for exceptional and bonafide reasons. The first Vice Chancellor though appointed as the nominee of the Government under Section 12(5) of the Act, is also subject to removal under Section 12(8) but strictly on grounds mentioned therein and after conducting enquiry and by adopting the procedure contained therein. The first Vice Chancellor though appointed as the nominee of the Government under Section 12(5) of the Act, is also subject to removal under Section 12(8) but strictly on grounds mentioned therein and after conducting enquiry and by adopting the procedure contained therein. We do not know why the Government did not choose to initiate disciplinary action against the appellant, if his act of publication of Ext.P6 article in the news paper could be the basis for it. Probably the Government may not be confident of establishing the allegation of indiscipline or misconduct on the part of the appellant for removing him under Section 12(8) of the Act, and that could be the only reason why "administrative reasons" is stated as ground for invoking the pleasure jurisdiction of the Chancellor. The Government also has no case that the Vice Chancellor's post is any less important than the post to which the appellant is posted after recalling him from the post of first Vice Chancellor of the University. Strangely, the Vice Chancellor's post is now filled up on an ad-hoc basis by giving charge to the Additional Chief Secretary. We do not know how the Government can expect the Additional Chief Secretary loaded with heavy work in the Secretariat to responsibly discharge the duties of Vice Chancellor of a newly set up University located 500 Kms. away from his regular place of work. The act of withdrawing full time Vice Chancellor from a newly set up University and handing over charge of the Vice Chancellor to the Additional Chief Secretary is intrinsically against public interest because without full dedication and commitment by the first Vice Chancellor a newly set up University cannot be established successfully. It is the first Vice Chancellor, who has to start from the foundation and build the University to it's full form to commence operations. As already stated, the Government after withdrawing the appellant from the post of Vice Chancellor of the University has put him in some innocuous post, which itself proves that there was no administrative reason for recalling him from the Vice Chancellor's post. 12. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has specifically challenged the factual findings in the impugned judgment and in the review order that there is no challenge against the impugned orders on ground of malafide or arbitrariness. 12. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has specifically challenged the factual findings in the impugned judgment and in the review order that there is no challenge against the impugned orders on ground of malafide or arbitrariness. On going through the grounds of the WP(C), we notice that the appellant has specifically raised malafide and arbitrariness as grounds for challenge besides specifically alleging and trying to prove that the impugned action is motivated by Ext.P6 publication made by him in the news paper. Going by our findings above, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the learned Single Judge. For the reasons stated above, we declare that the impugned orders, namely Exts.P3 & P4, recalling the appellant from the post of Vice Chancellor and his substitution by the Additional Chief Secretary on an ad-hoc basis is arbitrary, malafide and illegal and is against public interest. We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allow the WP(C) by cancelling Exts.P3 & P4 orders with direction to the Government to immediately restore the appellant to the post of Vice Chancellor of the Veterinary University based on first notification issued by the Chancellor based on selection and recommendation by Government. This Writ Appeal is allowed as above.