SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(Raj) 339

P.D.KUDAL
Ghanshyam Chandra Mathur – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan And Two Ors – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. - This writ petition is directed against the order of the State Government, No. F. 31(1) Jud/77 dated 27th May, 1978, whereby Shri Radha Kishan Rastogi, respondent No. 3, was appointed as Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan.

2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in pursuance of Article 165 of the Constitution of India, the Government of each State shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed as Judge of a High Court to be Advocate General for the State Sub-clause (2) of Article 165 lays down the duties of Advocate General The qualifications for being appointed as a Judge of the High Court have been numerated in Article 217 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Article 217(1) provides that the age of superannuation for a Judge of the High Court would be the age of 62 years. His contention is that as academic and other qualifications apply to the post of Advocate General, there is no reason why the age limit of 62 years as laid down for a High Court Judge under Article 217 be not made applicable to the post of Advocate General. It was further contended that Shri Rastog














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top