Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, REKHA BORANA
Ishwar Prasad S/o Shri Ganpat Lal Ji – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge appointment of the Additional Advocate Generals and Law Officers made through the circulars dated 12th February 2024 and 12th March 2024 which in his opinion have been issued ignoring the judgment in State of Punjab & Anr. v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal & Anr. (2016) 6 SCC 1.
2. The petitioner has labeled the circulars under challenge as arbitrary and illegal on the ground that the orders are issued for engagement of the Additional Advocate Generals and Law Officers without following the mandate and procedure laid down under the Rajasthan Law and Legal Affairs Department Manual, 1999 (in short ‘Rajasthan Manual’) and the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018. The petitioner lays a challenge to the circulars dated 12th February 2024 and 12th March 2024 also on the ground that appointment of the Additional Advocate Generals and Law Officers was made without wide publicity through advertisement in the local newspapers and inviting applicatio
The court ruled that the appointment of Additional Advocate Generals is a professional engagement, not subject to employment laws, and the petitioner's claims lacked merit.
The Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018, is not enforceable as law; thus, the appointment of public advocates is at the State's discretion without rigid qualification requirements.
The State Litigation Policy, lacking statutory character, does not establish enforceable rights, and a writ of quo warranto is not applicable unless statutory provisions are violated.
The government holds discretion to terminate appointments of Public Prosecutors without inquiry or specific reasons, provided procedural mandates of applicable instructions are adhered to, maintainin....
The main legal point established is that the reservation policy does not apply to the appointment of Law Officers by the government, as their appointment is not a civil post and the relationship betw....
Engagement of Advocates as Law Officers is a professional arrangement, not subject to Writ Jurisdiction under Articles 14 and 16, affirming the Government's discretion to appoint and terminate withou....
The court established that Law Officers serve under a contractual relationship with the government, which has the discretion to terminate their services without cause.
The power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution of India. It is for the executive to administer law and the function of the judiciary is to ensure that the Government carries out ....
The Court emphasizes the need for genuine public interest in Public Interest Litigation and dismisses frivolous PILs lacking public interest.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article