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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to appointment based on qualifications (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's reasoning on policy examination (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. reiteration of appellant's arguments (Para 7 , 11) |
| 4. supreme court's observations on enforceability (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. nature of public office for advocates (Para 10) |
| 6. conditions under which quo warranto applies (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
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.
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.
5. On the challenge to Clause 14.8, the learned Single Judge held that there is no input for leveling allegations of arbitrariness and col
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 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 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.
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
