JUDGMENT : 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs : “(a) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order of directions in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the Notification No.155 of 2017 order issued on 16-08-2017 whereby the appointment of the petitioners are cancelled and be pleased to direct the respondent to continue the petitioners as an ordinary members upto 14-06-2018 as per the appointment order dated 04-07-2017. (b) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of notification no.155 of 2017 dated 16-08-2017 and be pleased to permit the petitioners to continue as member of Ordinary Members as per the appointment order dated 04-07-2017. (c) Be pleased to pass such other order or orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts giving rise to this petition may be summarized as under : (2.1) The petitioners have challenged a notification No.155/2017 dated 16th August, 2017 issued by respondent no.1 - Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent University”) which is constituted under the provisions of the Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University Act, 1986 i.e. Act No.22 of 1986 (“the Act” for short). (2.2) As per the notification no. 155/2017, the names of the petitioners were cancelled as nominee to “the Court” of the respondent University. (2.3) “The Court” is one of the authorities of the respondent University under section 15 of the Act. Section 16 of the Act provides for the constitution of “the Court” and it consists of Class-I Ex-Officio members and Class-II ordinary members. Under Section 16(1) Class-II (C) (ii)(b)(i) and b(ii) of the Act, five postgraduate students and five undergraduate students are required to be nominated by the Vice-chancellor of the respondent University after following due process by inviting the names from the concerned department of the respondent University. (2.4) It is the case of the petitioners that in the month of June 2017, the term of year of nominated members came to an end and therefore, the respondent University called upon the names of students from the examination department of post graduate and under graduate students. (2.4) It is the case of the petitioners that in the month of June 2017, the term of year of nominated members came to an end and therefore, the respondent University called upon the names of students from the examination department of post graduate and under graduate students. (2.5) Respondent no.2 Vice Chancellor after obtaining details as per the merit list, decided to nominate the names of the petitioners as the members of “the Court” as per the provisions of Section 16(1) Class-II (C) (ii)(b)(i) and b(ii) of the Act. The petitioners were issued appointment order on 4th July, 2017 by the respondent University for a period of one year i.e. up to 14th June, 2018 on the post of ordinary members. (2.6) It is the case of the petitioners that by the impugned notification No.155/2017 dated 16th August, 2017 appointment/nomination of the petitioners were cancelled by respondent no.2 without giving any reason or without giving any prior notice to the petitioners. (2.7) The petitioners therefore, applied under the provisions of Right to Information Act seeking details of noting of office note of appointment made of the members of “the Court” in place of the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter being aggrieved by the said impugned notification has approached this Court by filing this petition. (2.8) This Court by order dated 29th August, 2017 issued notice and granted interim relief in terms of paragraph 14(b) till the next returnable date by staying the implementation, operation and execution of No.155/2017 dated 16th August, 2017 and permitted the petitioners to continue as ordinary members of “the Court” as per appointment order dated 4th July, 2017. (2.9) It appears that one of the persons namely, Aartiben Shivrambhai Chaudhari – respondent no.3 herein who was nominated in place of the petitioners by the impugned notification preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 188/2018 challenging the interim order dated 29th August, 2017. The Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 20th April, 2018 after considering the detailed submissions made by the respective parties, disposed of the Letters Patent Appeal by giving directions as under : “1. The Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 20th April, 2018 after considering the detailed submissions made by the respective parties, disposed of the Letters Patent Appeal by giving directions as under : “1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the third parties to the petition, pending in Special Civil Application No.15814 of 2017, aggrieved by the order dated 29.8.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge by way of interim relief, pending disposal of the petition. 2. The aforesaid Special Civil Application is filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3, questioning the Notification No.155 of 2017 dated 16.8.2017 issued by the 4th respondent Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University, which is constituted under the provisions of the Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University Act i.e. Act No.22 of 1986. 3. “The Court” is one of the authorities of the University, apart from other authorities, under section 15 of the Act. The Constitution of “the Court” is covered under section 16 of the Act and it consists of Class I Ex-Officio Members and Class II Ordinary Members. The relevant Section 16(C)(ii) of the aforesaid Act, for the disposal of this petition, reads as under: “16(C)(ii) Seventeen members to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor, as follows, namely : (a) Five Deans of Faculties, by rotation as specified in the Statutes, (b) (i) Five postgraduate students who are wholly engaged in the studies in the University; (ii) five undergraduate students who are wholly engaged in studies in affiliated colleges from the first ten students in order of their merit in the examination held immediately before their nomination; (iii) two students who are wholly engaged in the undergraduate or postgraduate studies and who have achieved eminence in sports or other cultural activities organised by the University immediately before their nomination: Provided that one of the students to be nominated under item (iii) shall be a woman.” 4. Under Section 16 of the Act, Vice Chancellor is empowered to nominate five undergraduate students and five postgraduate students, who are wholly engaged in the studies in the University. By virtue of such nomination, they will become the members of “the Court” and, in turn, they have voting rights for election to the Executive Council of the University. 5. Under Section 16 of the Act, Vice Chancellor is empowered to nominate five undergraduate students and five postgraduate students, who are wholly engaged in the studies in the University. By virtue of such nomination, they will become the members of “the Court” and, in turn, they have voting rights for election to the Executive Council of the University. 5. It is the case of the original petitioners that, they are nominated to “the Court” by the Vice Chancellor by order dated 4.7.2017 and their tenure expires on 14.6.2018, as such, they are entitled to continue till then. It is the grievances of the petitioners in the petition that, the Vice Chancellor of the University by order dated 3.8.2017 appointed the appellants herein, in the place of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, without issuing any notice before the expiry of their tenure. When the University has issued notification to that effect, such notification is challenged in the petition. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 29.8.2017, while issuing notice, granted interim relief in terms of para 14(b) of the petition. 6. Para 14(b) of the petition reads as under: “14(b) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of notification no.155 of 2017 dated 16-08-2017 and be pleased to permit the petitioners to continue as a member of Ordinary members as per the appointment order dated 04-07-2017.” 7. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 29.8.2017, granting interim relief, the third parties to the petition, who are nominated to “the Court” by the Vice Chancellor, by the very same proceeding, which is impugned in the petition, have filed this appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. R.S.Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Archit P.Jani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. Dipen Desai, learned counsel for the original petitioners, Mr. D.C.Dave, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Siddharth H. Dave, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, Mr. Devang Vyas, learned counsel with Mr. Kshitij A. Amin, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 and Mr. J.S.Unwala, learned counsel with Ms.Tejal A.Vashi, learned counsel for respondent No.8. 9. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R.S.Sanjanwala appearing for the appellants submitted that, in this appeal, the appellants are also nominated as members of “the Court” by the Vice Chancellor by the very same order, which is subject matter of challenge in the petition. J.S.Unwala, learned counsel with Ms.Tejal A.Vashi, learned counsel for respondent No.8. 9. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R.S.Sanjanwala appearing for the appellants submitted that, in this appeal, the appellants are also nominated as members of “the Court” by the Vice Chancellor by the very same order, which is subject matter of challenge in the petition. The petition was filed without impleading them and interim order is obtained. It is submitted that, they are necessary parties to the petition. It is also the case of the appellants that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is passed without recording any reasons. On the said grounds, learned Senior Counsel has made a request to set aside the impugned order. 10. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/original petitioners, has submitted that, pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court, the appellants and respondent Nos.1 to 3 have participated in the voting in the election to the Executive Council, which was held on 16.2.2018. It is submitted that, as the respondents/original petitioners are nominated by order of the Vice Chancellor dated 4.7.2017, they are entitled to continue upto 14.6.2018. In spite of the same, in their place, the appellants were nominated without conducting any inquiry and without giving any opportunity, they were discontinued. It is submitted that, once they are appointed, they are entitled to continue for the full term of their appointment. 11. Mr. D.C.Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents University has submitted that, the issue, which falls for consideration in the petition, is no more res integra, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Harshadrai Shantilal Shah and Another Vs. State of Gujarat & others reported in 1996 (1) G.L.H. page 806. It is submitted that, in the aforesaid reported judgment, the identical provision of the Saurashtra University Act, 1965 was considered by this Court and it is held that, nominated members of Senate are entitled to continue for the period of their term unless a vacancy arises. It is submitted that, in that view of the matter, the subject matter of this petition is covered to be disposed of. 12. Mr. Devang Vyas, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.6 and 7, has submitted that, his clients were contestants for elections to the post of Executive Council held on 16.2.2018. It is submitted that, in that view of the matter, the subject matter of this petition is covered to be disposed of. 12. Mr. Devang Vyas, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.6 and 7, has submitted that, his clients were contestants for elections to the post of Executive Council held on 16.2.2018. It is submitted that, as per interim orders passed by this Court, the appellants as well as the respondents/original petitioners have participated in the elections to elect the members of the Executive Council, held on 16.2.2018. It is submitted that, two candidates are to be elected and if any of them has secured first preferential votes with a margin of more than six votes, there is no reason to withhold the result of such contestant. 13. Mr.J.S.Unwala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8 has submitted that, if the election result of Executive Council held on 16.2.2018 is to be declared, it is to be declared for both the seats and there is no reason to allow declaration of result for only one seat. He has brought to our notice about Statute 56 of the University, which provides for procedure for declaration of result. As per Statute 56 of the University, where the election is for more seats than one, the names of the candidates shall be arranged in the descending order of the number of valid votes which they get and as many candidates, who stand in that order counting from the candidate who secures the largest numbers of valid votes as there are seats to be filled, will be declared elected. 14. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we have perused the material on record. 15. At the outset, it is to be noticed that, this appeal is filed against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, as the main petition is pending consideration. The interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is granting stay of implementation and execution of the Notification No.155 of 2017 dated 16.8.2017 and permitted the respondents/original petitioners, to continue as Ordinary Members of “the Court”. 16. On filing of this appeal, while issuing notice, vide order dated 8.2.2018, this Court has passed the following order: “1. Notice returnable on 27.02.2018. Service of notice is waived by learned advocate Mr. Vyas for respondent nos.1 to 3 and by learned advocate Mr. 16. On filing of this appeal, while issuing notice, vide order dated 8.2.2018, this Court has passed the following order: “1. Notice returnable on 27.02.2018. Service of notice is waived by learned advocate Mr. Vyas for respondent nos.1 to 3 and by learned advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave for respondent nos.4 & 5. 2. In the meanwhile, the respondent University may proceed with the election to the Executive Committee scheduled on 16.02.2018. In the said election, the outgoing as well as nominated members, named in the Notification dated 16.08.2017, shall also be permitted to vote, however, their votes shall be kept separately in a sealed cover. The result of the election shall not be declared until further orders.” 17. It is not disputed that, pursuant to order dated 8.2.2018, all the appellants and respondent Nos.1 to 3 have exercised their voting rights in the election to the Executive Council held on 16.2.2018. Further, it is brought to our notice that, apart from the disputed votes of the appellants and the respondent Nos.1 to 3, there are 68 undisputed votes. This Court, vide order dated 1.3.2018, permitted the University to undertake counting of votes. It is clear from the Statute 56 of the Statutes framed under the Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University Act that, where the election is for more seats than one, the names of the candidates shall be arranged in the descending order of the number of valid votes which they get and as many candidates, who stand in that order counting from the candidate who secures the largest numbers of valid votes as there are seats to be filled, will be declared elected. 18. We have also perused the result produced before us with regard to votes secured by the contestants. After considering the report placed before this Court with regard to votes secured by the various candidates, we are of the view that there is no reason for not allowing declaration of result of one candidate, who has secured majority of more than six votes. 19. Though it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Sanjanwala that the petition filed is without impleading necessary parties and order did not contain reasons, as such, the order of the learned Single Judge should be set aside but, at the same time, we have to take note of the interim orders passed by this Court, pending disposal of this appeal. Sanjanwala that the petition filed is without impleading necessary parties and order did not contain reasons, as such, the order of the learned Single Judge should be set aside but, at the same time, we have to take note of the interim orders passed by this Court, pending disposal of this appeal. 20. At first instance, when the appeal was filed, on the eve of election to the Executive Council, this Court permitted the appellants as well as the respondents/original petitioners to vote in the elections with a direction to keep their votes separately. After perusing the report, we are of the view that, out of undisputed votes, one candidate has secured majority of more than six votes. In that view of the matter, there is no reason for stalling the results for the two posts in the Executive Council. In view of the pendency of the petition before the learned Single Judge, it is not desirable to record findings, which will have bearing on the decision of the petition itself. As much as this appeal is directed against interim order and further, in view of the earlier interim orders passed by this Court, during the pendency of this petition and taking the subsequent events into consideration, we are of the view that, this appeal can be disposed of by following directions: (1) Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed to declare the result of one candidate, who has secured majority of more than six votes, out of undisputed votes in the election held on 16.2.2018 to the Executive Council. (2) The declaration of result of 2nd candidate shall not be made until the petition in Special Civil Application is disposed of, with appropriate directions. (3) We grant liberty to the parties to make a request to the learned Single Judge to expedite the hearing of the petition. (4) It is made clear that as this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter, we request the learned Single Judge to decide the Special Civil Application on its own merits, uninfluenced by any of the findings recorded in this order. 21. This Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of with the directions, as indicated above. Consequently, Civil Applications also stand disposed of.” 3. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench, by order dated 10th September, 2019, the petition was admitted by issuing Rule. 21. This Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of with the directions, as indicated above. Consequently, Civil Applications also stand disposed of.” 3. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench, by order dated 10th September, 2019, the petition was admitted by issuing Rule. Thereafter, the matter was heard at length on 27th August, 2018. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioners submitted that the impugned notification/order dated 16th August, 2017 cancelling the appointment of the petitioners was never communicated to the petitioners nor the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing and therefore, the said notification is issued in violation of principles of natural justice. (4.1) It was submitted that as per the provisions of section 74 of the Act, any member can resign or cease to be a member only in the manner provided therein. None of the eventualities stated in section 74 of the Act have arisen in case of the petitioners for which the petitioners would cease to be member of “the Court” of the respondent University. It was therefore, submitted that the petitioners could not have been removed from the post of members of “the Court”. Reliance was placed on the noting on the files received under the Right to Information Act to submit that there is no adverse remark against the petitioners and the petitioners have not acted contrary to the interest of the respondent University or commit any offence which would lead to their removal from the post. But on the contrary, the petitioners were appreciated by the respondent University for their appointment as the members of “the Court”. (4.2) Learned advocate for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in case of Harshadrai Shantilal Shah and another v. State of Gujarat and others reported in 1996 (1) GLH 806 to submit that dealing with similar provisions under Saurashtra University Act, 1965, this Court held that nominated Senate member is entitled to continue for the period of term of the office unless a vacancy arises. (4.3) Reference was made to the decision of Supreme Court in case of B.P. Singhal v. Union of India and another reported in (2010) 6 SCC 331 to contend that 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. (4.3) Reference was made to the decision of Supreme Court in case of B.P. Singhal v. Union of India and another reported in (2010) 6 SCC 331 to contend that 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. The nomination of the petitioners cannot be covered by the doctrine of pleasure inasmuch as the doctrine of pleasure does not mean a license to act arbitrarily, capriciously or whimsically. It is presumed that discretionary powers conferred in absolute and unfettered terms of any public authority will necessarily and obviously be exercised reasonably and for the public good. It was therefore, submitted that in facts of the case, action of respondent no.2 to cancel the nomination of the petitioners without any reason is arbitrary. (4.4) Reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Cheviti Venkanna Yadav v. State of Telangana and others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 283 to submit that the word “appointment” has been substituted by “nomination”. The appointment of the petitioners is by nomination as members of “the Court” of the respondent University and it is not the word “appointment” as the word ordinarily connotes. It was submitted that a nominee can go from office by efflux of time when the period is over and the nominee can also be removed by adopting the procedure during the term of office for which appointment was otherwise made. Such nominee would continue till his term is over and the term in facts of the case is one year and therefore, the petitioners could not have been removed before the end of year for which they were nominated. It was submitted that impugned notification is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.R. Marshal appearing for respondents no. 3 to 8 who have been nominated in place of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have no vested right to continue in the post of ordinary members of “the Court” as their appointment was at the pleasure of respondent no.2. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.R. Marshal appearing for respondents no. 3 to 8 who have been nominated in place of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have no vested right to continue in the post of ordinary members of “the Court” as their appointment was at the pleasure of respondent no.2. It was submitted that both the petitioners as well as the respondents have voted pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench in the election to the Executive Council held on 16th February, 2018 subsequent to passing of the interim order and the Division Bench permitted to declare the result of voting of Executive Council of one of the candidates and the declaration of result of second candidate was not permitted until this petition is disposed of with appropriate directions. (5.1) Reliance was placed on the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no.3. It was contended that the petition is not maintainable as the petition is filed in collusion with the University without joining respondents no. 3 to 8 as party at the time of filing the petition though they were directly affected parties. It was submitted that the petitioners and the respondent University are hand in gloves and the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. The attention of the Court was invited to the fact that respondent University did not appear for more than six months in the petition but it appeared in Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondent University and opposed it with a view to favour the petitioners. Reliance was placed on the affidavit filed by the respondent University filed in Letters Patent Appeal, wherein it is averred that University had acquiesced with the interim order dated 29th August, 2017 without informing the private respondents or to the Court that it was only an interim order which did not attain finality. (5.2) Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the petitioners have efficacious alternative remedy available under section 77 of the Act to file an application before the State Government for redressal of their grievances. (5.2) Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the petitioners have efficacious alternative remedy available under section 77 of the Act to file an application before the State Government for redressal of their grievances. It was submitted that even if the University supports the petitioners in the present proceedings, then also private respondents would have to be considered the lawful members of the Senate and their votes are to be counted as the University at no point of time set aside its impugned circular nor any other circular was issued appointing any other persons as nominees. Learned Senior Advocate therefore would submit that in absence of any circular/recommendation/note, the private respondents have to be held as rightful nominees of the Vice Chancellor in April 2018 and their votes are required to be counted. (5.3) It was further submitted that the petition was filed by only three members whose nomination is cancelled but in fact, names of six members were removed and the three outgoing members are not aggrieved by the impugned notification and therefore, they cannot be benefited at the instance of the petitioners. It was submitted that the respondent University could not have removed the names of the private respondents from the voters' list published on 30th January, 2018. Reliance was placed on the following averments made in the affidavit : “9. I say and submit that the affidavit filed by the University, it is stated that the University had published only one voter's list on 30.01.2018. The affidavit filed by the University stating that only one voter's list was published, is also to favour the petitioners with an intention to see that the University raises disputed question of facts. It is submitted that the names of all 6 incoming members were also reflected in the list of voters published online on 01.02.2018. It is submitted that the University has filed false affidavit before the Hon'ble Court with the malafide intention to mislead the Hon'ble Court and to see that it favours the petitioners. It is requested to the Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate directions to institute criminal proceedings against the concerned officers of the University for filing the false affidavit before this Hon'ble Court. 10. I say and submit that the information was also sought from the University under the Right to Information Act. The University has not provided the requisite information since the same would go against them. 10. I say and submit that the information was also sought from the University under the Right to Information Act. The University has not provided the requisite information since the same would go against them. The relevant information which was provided by the University is shocking and completely contradictory to the affidavit filed by the University before this Hon'ble Court. The administrative note which was provided states that all the 12 nominees appointed by the Vice Chancellor are included in the list of voters. The note of another pending case being Letters Patent Appeal No.2399 of 2017 is recorded and held that the post of 8 graduates would have to be shown as vacant. However, there was no mention about the Special Civil Application No.15814 of 2017 even though the University was aware about the said petition pending before the Hon'ble Court after receiving the notice and purportedly acquiescing the order. The last page of the administrative note is purportedly prepared are filing of the Letters Patent Appeal so as to show the reason for changing the names of 6 voters in the final voters list. The handwriting in the last two pages of the administrative note are different even though both of them are purportedly put on 30.01.2018, which would establish that there is a note put on the original record of the University at a later point of time in a fraudulent manner so that the University come up with some reasons. The affidavit filed by the University states that the list was only published on 30.01.2018, however, the administrative note clearly states that there was preliminary list which was published. It is submitted that the voters' list was published only online and was not pasted on the notice board of the University. There has never been a physical voters' list published by the University. The deponent and others have produced two voters' list dated 29.01.2018 (wherein the names of the incoming members are shown) and 30.01.2018 (wherein the names of outgoing members are shown) and both the lists were published on the website of the University. The information published by any authority on the website is an official information under the Right to Information Act. The information published by any authority on the website is an official information under the Right to Information Act. The voters' list dated 29.01.2018 is, therefore, an official information and the names were included only with a view to see that the incoming members do not raise any grievance and do not get any chance to approach any Court and obtain any relief at the last moment. 11. I say and submit that the petitioners cannot raise the plea that the petitioners were not heard before their names were replaced by the incoming members. It is submitted that to appoint nominee of the Court under Section 16(Class-II)(C)(ii) is upon the discretion and pleasure of the Vice Chancellor. It is submitted that a person is not required to be heard and the action of an employer could not be challenged on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice when the powers exercised by the employer emanante from pleasure doctrine. In the present case, the petitioners were not appointed by the Vice Chancellor by undertaking any selection process like written examination, personal interview etc., and therefore, the petitioners who were appointed purely upon the discretion by the Vice Chancellor would not have any vested right. It is submitted that even under the General Clauses Act, when the statute is silent, power to appoint would confer the power to remove. 12. I say and submit that Letters Patent Appeal No.188 of 2018 was came up for hearing on 20.04.2015, whereby by order is passed and has been disposed of by issuing the directions. The result of one candidate who secured majority votes of more than 6 votes was directed to be declared and since there is dispute for the second seat, the direction was given that the same would be subject to outcome of the present writ petition.” (5.4) It was further submitted that the act of removing the names of the petitioners as nominee is not stigmatic and therefore, it cannot be stated that there is violation of principles of natural justice since the petitioners held the posts at the pleasure of Vice Chancellor. It was contended that the Vice Chancellor took the decision to nominate the private respondents by removing the petitioners, as earlier out of five post graduate students, four were from the same stream which was M.Sc. Sem-II. Hence respondents no. It was contended that the Vice Chancellor took the decision to nominate the private respondents by removing the petitioners, as earlier out of five post graduate students, four were from the same stream which was M.Sc. Sem-II. Hence respondents no. 4,5,7 and 8 were nominated who belonged to various streams. It was submitted that the private respondents being more meritorious students and therefore, their nomination cannot be rejected by permitting the petitioners to continue as members of the Senate. It was submitted that the University is considered as the temple of knowledge and the office bearers have to act fairy and justify to set the correct example and nurture right values amongst the students. The object of the act of providing participation of students is for the sacrosanct object to inculcate and promote democratic values. As against that, the Vice Chancellor acts upon the dictates of the few who wish to see that the University does not function in democratic manner and the syndicate created by them continues to operate carrying out illicit activities. It was therefore, submitted that an impression was given to the private respondents by the respondent University that they operate as nominees sitting tight over the order passed by this Court, only to use the same at the fag end by removing the names of the respondents from the list ousting their legitimate claim to cast the vote which is nothing but playing fraud upon this Court by misusing the procedure. It was therefore, submitted that any nominee who is appointed in the Senate continue to operate at the pleasure of Vice Chancellor and therefore, violation of principles of natural justice would not arise. As the decision of removal is not stigmatic and also not pleaded by the petitioners, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners as power of appointment also includes power of removal. It was therefore, submitted that affording an opportunity of hearing would be an useless formality and futile exercise as it is a case of nomination and not appointment and the petitioners have no vested right to continue as nominated members in the Senate. It was therefore, submitted that affording an opportunity of hearing would be an useless formality and futile exercise as it is a case of nomination and not appointment and the petitioners have no vested right to continue as nominated members in the Senate. (5.5) Learned Senior Advocate placed reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of Krishna s/o Bulaji Borate v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2001) 2 SCC 441 to submit that once doctrine of pleasure is applicable neither the principles of natural justice would step in nor the question of giving an opportunity of hearing before removal would arise. As no stigma is cast by removal of the petitioners, there is no question of granting opportunity of hearing. (5.6) Reliance was placed on the decision of Apex Court in case of PU Myllaihlychho and others v. State of Mizoram and others reported in (2005) 2 SCC 92 to support the contention that when appointment is at pleasure of Vice Chancellor, the petitioners were not required to be heard prior to their removal and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. (5.7) Learned Senior Advocate further relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Jagdishbhai Mafatlal Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (2) GLH 235 , wherein this Court while analysing the provisions of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 with regard to removal of petitioners in that case as the directors of the Vadodara District Cooperative Sugarcane Growers Union Ltd and Sardar Cooperative Sugar Industries Ltd before the expiry of statutory tenure under challenge on grounds of mala fide and political motivation, held that grounds of challenge were not tenable in law as the petitioners in that case were nominated with the pleasure of the Government at the relevant time and therefore, nomination cannot be termed as appointment nor an employment under the State Government. This Court held that statutory authority empowered to nominate the members can always change the composition of the said nominated committee applying doctrine of pleasure. 6. Learned advocate Mr. This Court held that statutory authority empowered to nominate the members can always change the composition of the said nominated committee applying doctrine of pleasure. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave appearing for the respondent University relied upon the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the University and submitted that the adjudication of this petition has become academic in view of the subsequent developments after the interim order dated 29th August, 2017 passed by this Court and after order dated 20th April, 2018 in Letters Patent Appeal No.188/2018. He referred to subsequent events narrated in affidavit in reply as under : “2. That terms of two members of executive council as elected as per Section 19(1)(vii) of the Hem. North Gujarat University Act, 1986 was going to be over on 30-03-2018 and for the purpose of election of those two members, the respondent University was required to follow procedure as per the Statute 63[Election from the Court S. 19(1)(vii)]. Therefore, on 29-01-2018, the respondent University has decided to prepare and publish the final voters list. Accordingly the date of election was fixed on 16-02-2018 and the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor has given instruction to verity the details of voters list and to submit it again. That said exercise was done on 29-01-2018. 3. It is submitted that thereafter, as per the afore referred noting of the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor, the answering respondent has place on record the details of order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Special Civil Application No.15814 of 2017 and forwarded the amended names to the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor for passing appropriate order on 30-01-2018. That the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor has on the very same date has noted the same and has accepted the said order and decided to acquiesced the order passed by the Hon’ble Court. 4. I deny each and every allegations made against University including the allegations of collusion made by the private respondents in its affidavit in reply. It is submitted that the respondent University has acquiesced the interim order passeed by this Hon’ble Court. 5. That as per the said direction, a final voters list came to be prepared and published on 30012018. The said final list is produced at page no.97 of the compilation of petition. It is submitted that the respondent University has acquiesced the interim order passeed by this Hon’ble Court. 5. That as per the said direction, a final voters list came to be prepared and published on 30012018. The said final list is produced at page no.97 of the compilation of petition. That thereafter, the respondent University has followed the procedure as per Statute 63 and has informed all the members of the court regarding the date of election fixed by the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor. It is further submitted that since the present petitioners along with other nominated members were there on roll/record as per the final voters list, the said members were informed as per Statute 63. It is submitted that said voters list published on 30032018 was not opposed by any one and the same has attained finality before the election and the election has been conducted as per the said voters list. 6. That thereafter, pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, in Letters Patent Appeal filed by the newly joined respondents, all of them (six in incoming members and six outgoing members) were permitted to vote and their votes are kept in two separate covers. 7. It is submitted that the petitioners along with other members were appointed on 04-07-2017 for the period of one year i.e. up to 14-06-2018 and thereafter, the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor has nominated another six members (newly joined respondents) instead of petitioners and other members. Therefore, the names of those six members (newly joined respondents) updated on the website of the University as an ordinary members. However, the said appointments were stayed by the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 29-08-2017 and therefore, said names were amended at the time of preparation of final voters list on 30-01-2018 as the order passed by the Hon’ble Court has acquiesced by the University. It is pertinent to note that neither any affected members nor any other members had raised any objection regarding the said final voters list and the said voters list has become final before the date of election. 8. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner and other members who were appointed on 04-07-2017 had continued on the roll as members till dated 14-06-2018 and thereafter, the respondent University has nominated fresh members on 16.07.2018. 8. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner and other members who were appointed on 04-07-2017 had continued on the roll as members till dated 14-06-2018 and thereafter, the respondent University has nominated fresh members on 16.07.2018. Copy of the nominated order dated 16-07-2018 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure” I” to this reply. 9. In view of the fact that the term of the members have already been come to an end, the present petition challenging the order dated 16-08-2017 has become academic as the prayer made in the petition does not survive now. Therefore, the present petition may kindly be disposed of with appropriate direction.” 7. In view of aforesaid averments made, it was submitted that as the term of the members have already come to an end, challenge to the impugned notification dated 16th August, 2017 has become academic as life of such notification has come to an end. It was therefore, submitted that the prayers made in the petition does not survive. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the materials on record, in view of subsequent developments as narrated by the respondent University in the affidavit in reply, it is true that the termination of appointment/nomination of the petitioners and nomination of the private respondents for the academic year 20-17-2018 has come to an end on 14th June, 2017. Therefore, the impugned notification No.155/2017 has no life after 14th June, 2017. 9. Therefore, only question which requires to be considered is whether the voting right exercised by the petitioners as well as the private respondents for the election of Executive Council held on 16th February, 2018 pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench should be considered for declaration of the result of second candidate in view of direction issued by the Division Bench in order dated 20th February, 2018 in Letters Patent Appeal No.188/2018? 10. In view of the fact that adjudication of the veracity of the impugned notification No. 155/2017 has become academic as life of such notification is over, to adjudicate the question with regard to eligibility to vote in the election held on 16th February, 2018 by the petitioners and the private respondents would lead to decide veracity of the Notification. 10. In view of the fact that adjudication of the veracity of the impugned notification No. 155/2017 has become academic as life of such notification is over, to adjudicate the question with regard to eligibility to vote in the election held on 16th February, 2018 by the petitioners and the private respondents would lead to decide veracity of the Notification. Therefore, interest of justice would be met if the voting right exercised by the petitioners as well as private respondents are taken into consideration for the purpose of declaration of the result of second candidate of the election held on 16th February, 2018. Therefore, without going into the larger issue of veracity of the impugned notification as well as applicability of doctrine of pleasure vis-a-vis principles of natural justice, canvassed by both the sides, the petition is disposed of by issuing the following directions : (i) No adjudication is required in view of the fact that by efflux of time impugned notification no. 155/2017 dated 16th August, 2017 has lapsed. (ii) As this Court by interim order dated 29th August, 2017, stayed the operation of the impugned notification, such notification would not come in way of considering the vote casted by the private respondents in view of directions given by the Division Bench permitting them to exercise their voting rights in the election of Executive Council held on 16th February, 2018. (iii) In peculiar facts and circumstances emerging from record and in view of orders passed by this Court as well as Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal, it would be in the interest of justice to direct respondent no.2 University to declare the result of the second candidate by considering the vote casted by the petitioners as well as private respondents and ordered accordingly. 11. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.