The Constitution of India
Article 310
Tenure of office of persons serving the Union or a State
(1) 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 an all-India service or holds any post connected with defence or any civil post under the Union holds office during the pleasure of the President, and every person who is a member of a civil service of a State or holds any civil post under a State holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State.
(2) Notwithstanding that a person holding a civil post under the Union or a State holds office during the pleasure of the President or, as the case may be, of the Governor of the State, any contract under which a person, not being a member of a defence service or of an all-India service or of a civil service of the Union or a State, is appointed under this Constitution to hold such a post may, if the President or the Governor, as the case may be, deems it necessary in order to secure the services of a person having special qualifications, provide for the payment to him of compensation, if before the expiration of an agreed period that post is abolished or he is, for reasons not connected with any misconduct on his part, required to vacate that post.
Why this exists
Article 310 is rooted in the British common law doctrine that servants of the Crown hold office 'during the pleasure of the Crown,' meaning they don't have a fixed-term contractual right to their post and can be dismissed without notice. The framers of the Constitution carried this idea forward for government servants in independent India to preserve administrative flexibility and control over the civil and defence services, while still allowing constitutional exceptions (like Article 311's procedural safeguards against arbitrary dismissal) and permitting special contracts with compensation clauses for experts specially hired for particular posts.
How courts read it
Courts have consistently held that the 'pleasure' doctrine under Article 310 is not absolute; it operates subject to express constitutional limitations, most importantly Article 311, which requires a fair inquiry before dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of civil servants. In cases like State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid and later in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985), the Supreme Court clarified that while the pleasure doctrine allows termination of service, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in violation of natural justice and constitutional safeguards where those apply. The Court has treated Article 310 and 311 as complementary provisions, with 311 carving out due-process protections from the otherwise broad discretion given by Article 310.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Article 310 means the government can fire any civil servant instantly for any reason, with no rights at all.
Fact: Courts have held that this power is limited by Article 311, which requires a fair inquiry and reasonable opportunity to be heard before dismissal, removal, or rank reduction in most cases. - Myth: The 'pleasure' doctrine applies to all government-related workers, including private contractors.
Fact: It applies specifically to those holding defence, all-India, civil service, or civil posts under the Union or a State; special contractual employees with particular qualifications can have separate compensation arrangements under clause (2).