Devan Ramachandran, J.

These writ appeals, at the instance of the State of Kerala, calls into question the sweep, ambit and purlieu of the time tested and time honoured Doctrine of Pleasure. This doctrine began its life as a common law rule. It had its origins in England and began as a convention of the British law. Under this doctrine a public servant holds office during the pleasure of the crown and can be dismissed from service by the crown at its pleasure. The civil servant under it is susceptible to dismissal without cause, without being legally competent to claim damages for wrongful dismissal or premature termination.

2. The hyposthsis of this doctrine is traced to the Maxim “Durente Bene Placito” which literally means “during pleasure”. As per this maxim, the tenure of office, except where it is otherwise specifically provided by the statute, can be terminated at any time without any cause being assigned.

3. In these appeals, the State of Kerala has challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge, wherein the removal of the members earlier nominated by the Government, to three different statutory boards, namely, the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Board, the Kerala Minimum Wages Advisory Board and the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board, before expiry of their term of appointment without any cause or reason being assigned for such action, was found to be impermissible and illegal. The essential contention of the appellants is that the writ petitioners are all nominated members to the above mentioned Boards and, therefore, that they hold office only under the pleasure of the Government, thereby consequently being liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason.

4. We notice that the learned Single Judge found partially in favour of the appellants while holding that the appointment of the petitioners and other members of the various Boards mentioned above, were at the pleasure of the Government but held that their removal cannot be ordered merely at the pleasure of the Government. The State of Kerala has filed these appeals challenging that part of the judgment as being illegal and unconstitutional.

5. We have heard Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri.Harikumar G.Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.A.Nos.74 and 648 of 2017.

6. Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney began his submissions singularly relying on the doctrine of pleasure. According to him, the writ petitioners and other members of the aforementioned Boards had been appointed or nominated by the Government without any qualifications being prescribed for such appointments or nominations and merely by a pick and choose method. According to him, when the statutes that govern these Boards prescribe no qualifications for the appointment or nomination of members to it and when the statutes enable the Government to pick and choose candidates at their own pleasure for being so appointed, it is a clear case of the doctrine of pleasure being attracted. He says that the members of the Boards including the petitioners, were appointed in such fashion, namely, at the pleasure of the Government, they can also be removed by invoking the doctrine of pleasure.

7. The various learned counsel appearing for the various writ petitioners/respondents in these cases, on the contrary, submits that the contentions of the appellants is completely untenable. According to them, each of them were appointed under the provisions of specific Statutes and Rules governing the constitution and functioning of the respective Boards and they say that since all their appointments are as per statutory prescriptions, the doctrine of pleasure would not apply and that they can be removed from their office, before the term for which they were appointed, only following the mandate and procedural imperatives under the relevant Statutes and other applicable Rules and Regulations.

8. We have considered the dial