Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, ACJ, BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Sunil Samdaria S/o Late Shri B.L. Samdaria – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, ACJ.
1. The appellant by way of this special appeal assails the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the writ petition preferred by him was dismissed.
2. The appellant is a practicing Advocate and had moved writ petition before this Court in the nature of quo warranto as against the respondent No.2 on the ground that the respondent No.2 does not possess the minimum requisite experience of practice of ten years as an Advocate for being appointed as an Additional Advocate General.
3. The entire basis of challenge of qualification and eligibility of respondent No.2 is the State Litigation Policy, 2018 and therefore, in the writ petition the appellant/petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 23.08.2024 whereby, respondent No.2 was appointed as the Additional Advocate General of Rajasthan for the cases to be taken up in the Supreme Court. Further, he challenges the Clause 14.8 incorporated in the Litigation Policy and prays to hold it to be arbitrary, illegal and invalid.
4. The learned Single Judge proceeded to examine the Clauses of the State Litigation Policy, 2018 and like on earlier judgments passed by the Court
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 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 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.....
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....
Point of Law : Since the appointment of the 7th respondent is made, creating a supernumerary post, there is no other option to the petitioner, than to approach this Court, by filing a writ petition s....
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
