Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
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
Headnote: Read headnote
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 se
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.
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 District Government Counsel do not hold civil posts or employee status under Article 311; their engagement is contractual, terminable at will without notice, and does not attract constitutional p....
Amended service rules undermining the authority of the Advocate General violate constitutional provisions under Articles 14 and 165, establishing unreasonable classification and compromising constitu....
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....
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