Constitution of India
Article 310: Tenure of office of persons serving the Union or a State
Part XIV — Services under the Union and the States
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: Every member of a defence service, civil service of the Union, all-India service, or holder of any defence or civil post under the Union holds office during the pleasure of the President; every member of a State civil service or holder of a State civil post holds office during the pleasure of the Governor. WHAT IT MEANS: Government servants have no fixed tenure — their continuance depends on executive pleasure, but this is qualified by other constitutional provisions (especially Article 311). KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Pleasure — derived from the English common law principle 'durante bene placito' (during good pleasure).
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: Despite Clause (1), if a person NOT belonging to defence, all-India, or civil services is appointed on contract to a civil post, and the President/Governor deems it necessary to secure services of a person with special qualifications, the contract may provide for compensation if — (a) the post is abolished before the agreed period, or (b) the person is required to vacate for reasons unconnected with misconduct. WHAT IT MEANS: Contractual appointees with special qualifications get financial protection against premature termination without fault — a carve-out from the general pleasure doctrine. KEY DOCTRINE: Compensatory protection for specialist contract appointees — ensures the state can attract expert talent by guaranteeing financial security.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. British Common Law — Crown Pleasure Doctrine (durante bene placito regis) Original provision: Under English common law, civil servants held office at the pleasure of the Crown and could be dismissed at any time without reason. What India kept: The basic principle that government servants hold office during executive pleasure. 2. Government of India Act, 1935 — Section 240 Original provision: Section 240 introduced limited safeguards against arbitrary dismissal while retaining the pleasure doctrine. What India kept: The combination of pleasure doctrine with constitutional safeguards (Articles 310 + 311 mirror Section 240's structure). INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Pleasure is NOT absolute — Unlike the UK where Crown pleasure is unreviewable, India subjects it to Article 311 safeguards (inquiry, right to be heard). 2. Pleasure is NOT personal — President/Governor acts on aid and advice of Council of Ministers, not personally (Shamsher Singh, 1974). 3. Pleasure is judicially reviewable — Courts can examine whether dismissal is arbitrary, mala fide, or violates Fundamental Rights (Articles 14, 16, 21). 4. Specific constitutional offices EXCLUDED — President, SC/HC Judges, CAG, CEC have secured tenure outside Article 310. 5. Clause (2) is an ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION — No British equivalent existed for compensating specialist contractual appointees upon premature termination.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 7 September 1949 (CAD Volume IX) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Drafting Committee Chairman) — Introduced Draft Article 282A as a new provision not in the 1948 Draft; stated that civil servants hold office during executive pleasure, with a compensation exception for contractual specialists. 2. H.V. Kamath (C.P. & Berar) — Questioned whether sufficient guarantees existed against abuse of executive power over civil servants; emphasized the need for an efficient civil service. 3. Dr. P.S. Deshmukh — Proposed amendment to fix a retirement age of 68 years instead of leaving tenure to executive discretion; later withdrew and suggested alternate amendment that pleasure should vest in the President even for State services. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Fixed tenure vs. Pleasure doctrine — Dr. Deshmukh wanted age-based retirement (68 years) rather than open-ended executive discretion; he withdrew this amendment. 2. President vs. Governor as pleasure authority for State services — Dr. Deshmukh suggested all civil servants should serve at the President's pleasure, not the Governor's; this was not accepted. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 282A was adopted on the same day (7 September 1949) with minimal debate and no substantive amendments; the pleasure doctrine for both Union and State servants was retained as proposed by the Drafting Committee. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: Ambedkar explained that under Article 282A, the legal implication is that a dismissed public servant cannot claim restoration through a court — hence the necessity of safeguards in the companion Article 282B (Article 311).
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (AIR 1954 SC 245) — English common law pleasure doctrine has NOT been fully adopted in India; a wrongfully dismissed civil servant can claim arrears of salary. 2. State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya (AIR 1961 SC 751) — Doctrine of Pleasure under Article 310 is NOT absolute; it cannot be limited by legislation or Article 309 rules, but IS subject to Article 311 safeguards. 3. Moti Ram Deka v. North East Frontier Railway (1964) — Struck down a rule allowing termination of permanent railway employees without inquiry as inconsistent with Articles 310-311. 4. Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India (AIR 1967 SC 1889) — Government servant's rights are governed by service rules; tenure is not based solely on Article 310 but also on statutory frameworks. 5. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1974 SC 2192) — Pleasure under Article 310 is exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers, NOT personally by the President/Governor; this 7-judge bench ruling democratized the doctrine. 6. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (AIR 1985 SC 1416) — Clarified interplay of Articles 309, 310, 311; upheld exceptions to inquiry under Article 311(2) but mandated good faith and fairness even when dispensing with inquiry. 7. B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 331 — Even offices held 'at pleasure' (e.g., Governor under Article 156) are subject to constitutional discipline; removal must be for valid reasons, not arbitrary, capricious, or politically motivated. NOTABLE DISSENTS (if any): 1. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Shamsher Singh (1974) — Gave a concurring but separate opinion (with Bhagwati J.) emphasizing that the President defends the Constitution by accepting cabinet responsibility, not by denying it. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Article 311 is in the nature of a proviso to Article 310; the pleasure doctrine operates only outside the field covered by Article 311. 2. M.P. Jain — The Indian doctrine of pleasure is a 'constitutionally controlled pleasure' fundamentally different from the absolute English Crown pleasure.