Article 310 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Here is a comprehensive explanation of Article 310 of the Constitution of India, including its text, meaning, and key case law:
🧾 Article 310 – Tenure of office of persons serving the Union or a State
🔹 Text of Article 310:
“Except as expressly provided by this Constitution, every person who is a member of a defence service or of a civil service of the Union or of a civil service of a State or holds any post connected with defence or any civil post under the Union or a State, holds office during the pleasure of the President or, as the case may be, the Governor of the State.”
📌 Explanation of Article 310
| Concept | Explanation |
|---|---|
| "Doctrine of Pleasure" | Public servants in India hold office at the pleasure of the President or Governor. This means they can be dismissed without cause, unless protected by other constitutional provisions. |
| Origin | This concept comes from British constitutional law, where civil servants serve “at the pleasure of the Crown.” |
| Limitation | This pleasure doctrine is not absolute and is subject to constitutional safeguards, especially: |
Article 311: Provides protection to civil servants from arbitrary dismissal.
Service Rules: Civil servants are protected by rules and disciplinary procedures.
| Applicable To | All persons holding:
Defence services
Civil services of the Union or States
Civil posts under Union or States
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Article 310
1. Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36
Landmark case interpreting Article 310 and 311.
Held:
The doctrine of pleasure applies only when not qualified by service rules or Article 311.
If a government servant is substantively appointed, then Article 311 must be complied with for dismissal.
Significance: Distinguished between purely pleasure-based appointments and those protected by law.
2. Union of India v. Balbir Singh, (1998) 5 SCC 216
Held: The pleasure doctrine under Article 310 is subject to procedural protections under Article 311.
Reaffirmed that dismissal without inquiry or reasons violates constitutional safeguards.
3. State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid, AIR 1954 SC 245
Related to a civil servant's right to arrears of salary.
Held: Even under the doctrine of pleasure, a government servant has a right to enforce legitimate claims under service law.
4. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192
Held: Even though civil servants hold office "at the pleasure" of the President or Governor, this pleasure is exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Relevance: This judgment democraticizes the doctrine, tying it to cabinet responsibility.
5. Tulsiram Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1416
Concerned exceptions to Article 311 where dismissal can happen without inquiry.
Held: Even under Article 310, when exceptions under Article 311(2)(b) apply (like in the interest of security), due reasoning must be recorded.
Reaffirmed that natural justice is not entirely excluded.
✅ Summary Table
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Article | 310 |
| Concept | Doctrine of Pleasure |
| Authority | President (for Union) or Governor (for States) |
| Limitation | Article 311 (protection for civil servants), service rules |
| Not Absolute | Subject to judicial review and principles of natural justice |
| Key Cases | Dhingra, Balbir Singh, Shamsher Singh, Tulsiram Patel, Abdul Majid |
🔄 Related Articles
| Article | Subject |
|---|---|
| Article 309 | Recruitment and service conditions of public servants |
| Article 310 | Doctrine of pleasure |
| Article 311 | Protection from dismissal without inquiry |
| Article 312 | All-India Services |
📌 Key Takeaways:
Article 310 enables dismissal at the pleasure of the President or Governor, but...
This is not unfettered power. Article 311 and service laws limit arbitrary dismissals.
The doctrine is constitutional but not absolute—and is always subject to fairness, procedure, and judicial scrutiny.
RELATED Blog
0 comments