1. Where a person is nominated or appointed as a Prescribed Officer of a Cooperative Society under Section 49(8) of the Act and Rule 43-B of the Rules to exercise powers in lieu of an expired board, such appointment does not confer a substantive right equivalent to an elected position. The authority (Registrar) has the express power conferred by the statute to remove such a person by order in writing at any time without assigning reasons.
2. Since the petitioners were not elected and held no statutory tenure, they could not claim equality with elected members or a right against indefinite continuance. Consequently, the removal was not stigmatic, and there was no obligation to issue a notice or afford an opportunity of hearing.
3. The Doctrine of Pleasure applies, allowing the appointing authority to terminate such nominations at its discretion without satisfying the requirements of Article 14 or natural justice in the manner applicable to service posts. The requirement under Article 311 of the Constitution, if applicable to such a post, is merely that the officer cannot be detained, imprisoned, or dismissed without being informed of the charges where their character is brought into question; mere removal without such implication does not mandate pre-removal notice.
4. The petitioner falls into a different class from elected members and holds no legal or fundamental right to continue in the post. The appointment is pure discretion and subjective satisfaction of the government, conferring no tenure distinct from a 'minimum tenure' until elections are held. The right to equality under Article 14 applies to equals and not to unequals.
5. The authority who appointed the petitioners has equal power to remove them. The exercise of the doctrine of pleasure in this context is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional nor antithetical to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
