Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL, J
Sunil Samdaria S/O Late Shri B. L. Samdaria – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner raises contentions (Para 5) |
| 2. respondents rebut petitioner's claims (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court discusses nature of office (Para 9) |
| 4. court's ruling on policy amendment (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
Order :
2. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , has been preferred by the petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate, challenging the appointment of respondent No.2 as an Additional Advocate General for Government of Rajasthan to appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, made by respondent No.1 vide order dated 23rd August 2024. Petitioner has also questioned the validity of Clause 14.8 incorporated in the State Litigation Policy of Rajasthan- 2018 on 23rd August 2024 itself, alleging that the State Litigation Policy-2018 has been amended in an arbitrary and hasty manner, by incorporating Clause 14.8 therein, just to grant appointment to respondent No.2 as Additional Advocate General, despite the fact that he lacks minimum experience of practice of 10 years' as an Advocate, which is a mandatory requirement as per Clause 14.4 of the Litigation Policy- 2018, for appoin
The court upheld the validity of the appointment of Additional Advocate General under the amended State Litigation Policy, emphasizing the discretion of the State in appointing counsel based on exper....
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 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.
: action of the State, thus, must be judged with extreme care and circumspection. It must be borne in mind that the right of the public prosecutor or the district counsel do not flow under a statute.....
Amended service rules undermining the authority of the Advocate General violate constitutional provisions under Articles 14 and 165, establishing unreasonable classification and compromising constitu....
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....
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
