Pleasure doctrine and tenure curtailment: appointment terms may include service tenure, and separate removal safeguards need not apply.

Section 4-A of the Haryana Board of School Education framework gave the State Government a general power to hold the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and members during its pleasure, so a policy-based curtailment of tenure was valid and did not require compliance with the separate removal procedure in Section 9. The Court treated Section 9 as operating in a different field, confined to member-specific removal where continuance in office was not in the Board's interest and reasons had to be communicated. It also held that "terms and conditions of appointment" included tenure of service, and the appointment material expressly allowed curtailment of tenure at any time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government could curtail the tenure of the Chairman of the Haryana Board of School Education under Section 4-A without following the procedure in Section 9; (ii) Whether the expression "terms and conditions of appointment" included the tenure of service so as to permit curtailment of the appointment period.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government could curtail the tenure of the Chairman of the Haryana Board of School Education under Section 4-A without following the procedure in Section 9.

Analysis: Section 4-A conferred a general power on the State Government to hold the office of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and members during its pleasure, notwithstanding Section 3 or Section 4 or any other provision. Section 9, by contrast, was a special provision dealing with removal of a member where continuance in office was not in the interest of the Board and contemplated communication of reasons and consideration of an explanation. The two provisions operated in different fields, and Section 9 was held inapplicable to a curtailment made on the basis of a general policy decision. The record did not establish mala fides or punitive action.

Conclusion: The curtailment was valid under Section 4-A and was not invalid for want of compliance with Section 9.

Issue (ii): Whether the expression "terms and conditions of appointment" included the tenure of service so as to permit curtailment of the appointment period.

Analysis: The expression "terms of service" was held to comprehend the tenure of service as well. The appointment order itself contemplated later notification of terms and conditions, and the later communication expressly stated that the Government could curtail the tenure at any time. The Court rejected the contention that tenure lay outside the scope of the governing terms and conditions.

Conclusion: The expression included tenure of service and supported the Government's power to curtail the appellant's term.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the curtailment failed, and the order of the High Court was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute expressly provides that an office is held during the pleasure of the State Government, a policy-based curtailment of tenure is valid and is not governed by the procedural safeguards applicable to a distinct removal provision dealing with member-specific action.

---