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 expertise rather than strict adherence to experience requirements.

Order :

1. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition has been heard finally on merits at the admission stage.

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 23^rd August 2024. Petitioner has also questioned the validity of Clause 14.8 incorporated in the State Litigation Policy of Rajasthan- 2018 on 23^rd 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 appointment of an advocate as Additional Advocate General.

3. For ready reference, prayer made in the writ petition is being reproduced hereunder:-

"In conspectus of aforesaid state of facts, it is prayed to Honourable Court:-

(i) To issue and appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.8.2024 (Annexure-1) whereby Respondent No.2 have been appointed as an Additional Advocate General by the Respondent No. 1.

(ii) To issue and appropriate writ, order or direction issuing a writ of quo warranto annulling the appointment of Respondent No.2 as an Additional Advocate General as he does not satisfy the eligibility criteria of 'minimum experience of practice for 10 years' for appointment as Additional Advocate General for the Government of Rajasthan.

(iii) To issue and appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Clause 14.8 of incorporated in the Litigation Policy of 2018 vide Annexure-3 as manifestly arbitrary, illegal and invalid or read down to mean that requirement of 'minimum experience of practice for 10 years' for appointment of Additional Advocate General prescribed by Clause 14.4 remains unaffected, despite incorporation of Clause 14.8 in Litigation Policy of 2018, more so when Clause 14.4 of the Litigation Policy has not been amended.

(iv) Any other appropriate writ, order, direction or declaration which this Honourable Court deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.

(v) Award cost of petition."

4. Petitioner has raised following contentions:-

i) Respondent No.2 does not have the minimum experience of practice as an Advocate for 10 years, which is mandatorily required as per Clause 14.4 of the State Litigation Policy- 2018 and Clause 14.4 has not been amended, rather same subsists in the Policy, even after insertion of Clause 14.8 in the policy.

(ii) The appointment of respondent No.2 was not made with effective consultation of the Advocate General, which is essentially required as per Clause 14.2 of the Litigation Policy- 2018;

(iii) The appointment of respondent No.2 stands contrary to the ratio decidendi expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal [(2016) 6 SCC 1]

(iv) The appointment of respondent No.2 as Additional Advocate General of the Government of Rajasthan, is in the nature of appointment on a Public Office and since, he lacks eligibility of required minimum experience of 10 years' practice as an Advocate (His Enrollment Number is D/5258/2019 in Bar Council), a writ of quo warranto be issued, annulling his appointment as Additional Advocate General.

(v) Incorporation of Clause 14.8 to the Rajasthan State Litigation Poli