If An Appointment Is Made Through Nomination Lgislature Can Authorize The State Govt To Terminate Such Appointments At Its Pleasure & Replace Them With New Nominees: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that if an appointment is made through nomination, the legislature can authorize the State Government to terminate such appointments at its pleasure and replace them with new nominees.

The Court emphasized that such removals do not violate any constitutional provisions, reaffirming the doctrine of pleasure in government

The Division Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, while reaffirming the “doctrine of pleasure,” held that there is no violation of constitutional provisions if the legislature authorizes the State Government to terminate nominated appointments at its pleasure and make fresh nominations in their place.

The Bench observed, "If an appointment has been made initially by nomination, there can be no violation of any provision of the Constitution in case the legislature authorized the State Government to terminate such appointment at its pleasure and to nominate new members in their place."

The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the State’s decision to remove them without notice or hearing.

Facts of the Case

The Appellants—Bhanu Pratap Singh (chairperson), Ganesh Dhruw, and Amrit Lal Toppo (Members) were appointed on July 16, 2021, to the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog under Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2020.

Following the 2023 State Assembly elections and a change in government, the General Administration Department issued an order on December 15, 2023, instructing all departments to terminate political appointments, except where legal protection applied. The appellants’ services were terminated under this directive, prompting them to file a writ petition (WPC No. 206 of 2024), which was dismissed by the Single Judge on January 29, 2025. The present appeal arose from that decision.

Key Legal Issues Raised

1. Whether appointments under the 2020 Act were protected from termination at will by the State.

2. Whether the appellants were entitled to a hearing before removal under Section 4(3) of the Act.

3. Whether the doctrine of pleasure applies to such statutory appointments.

The Appellants contended that their appointments were governed by statute and protected under Section 4(3), which provides for removal only after an opportunity of hearing. They maintained that their termination was abrupt, politically motivated, and violated principles of natural justice.

State Government’s Stand

Representing the State, Additional Advocate General Ranbir Singh Marhas argued that the appointments were clearly made at the pleasure of the State Government, as explicitly stated in the appointment orders and Section 4(1) of the 2020 Act. He asserted that when appointments are made without a formal selection process, they remain nominations, giving the State unfettered discretion to remove such individuals at will.

Court’s Observations

Rejecting the appeal, the Division Bench reaffirmed the application of the doctrine of pleasure and held, “If an appointment has been made initially by nomination, there can be no violation of any provision of the Constitution in case the legislature authorized the State Government to terminate such appointment at its pleasure and to nominate new members in their place.”

The Court further observed, “The appointment order itself bears the condition that their appointment is up to the pleasure of the State Government… The action of the authorities neither offends any Article of the Constitution nor is against public policy or democratic norms.”

Referring to B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010), the Bench stated, “The holder of an office under pleasure could be removed at any time, without notice, without assigning cause, and without there being a need for any cause.”

The Division Bench also struck down certain stigmatic remarks made by the Single Judge in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the earlier judgment, noting that those observations did not form part of the official termination order, nor were they argued or recorded during proceedings.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that:

1. The appellants’ appointments were political nominations, not competitive or selection-based.

2. Their tenure was clearly subject to the pleasure of the Government.

3. There was no violation of natural justice or constitutional safeguards, as the termination did not cast any stigma.

Dismissing the Appeal, the Bench ordered, "We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order dismissing the writ petition of the appellants/writ petitioners as the holder of an office under pleasure could be removed at any time, without notice, without assigning cause and without there being a need for any cause."

Cause Title: Bhanu Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2025:CGHC:14487-DB]

Appearance:-

Appellant: Advocate K Rohan

Respondent: Additional Advocate General (Addl. AG) Ranbir Singh Marhas,

Click here to read/download the Judgment