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.

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 in the case of Ishwar Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5313/2024 dated 03.12.2024 and the Supreme Court's order in the case of Dr. Abhinav Sharma Vs. Sunil Samdaria in Civil Appeal No. 4501/2015 and proceeded to hold that the post of the Additional Advocate General is not a public office. Secondly the learned Single Judge, on merits, held that the power existed with the State-Government in terms of Clause 14.8 to appoint any counsel to any post after considering his experience in the respective field and the requirement of 10 years cannot be said to be inflexible.

5. On the challenge to Clause 14.8, the learned Single Judge held that there is no input for leveling allegations of arbitrariness and colourable exercise of power available with the appellant and the council of Ministers have taken a decision to introduce Clause 14.8 in the State Litigation Policy. Merely on account of sequence of events, the learned Single Judge held that it may be a coincidence, but inference cannot be drawn of arbitrariness or the colourable exercise of power by the State.

6. Learned Single Judge further proceeded to hold that it would not be advisable for the Court to interfere in policy decisions on the issue of it being vice or not as per the choice for the Court and therefore, rejected the contentions of Clause 14.8 of the Policy being illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. Further argument regarding the Additional Advocate General appointment without consultation of Advocate General raised by the appellant was also rejected and it was found to be designed by the State and therefore, not worth acceptance and dismissed the writ petition following the judgment passed in the case of Ishwar Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra).

7. In special appeal, the appellant-petitioner reiterated his arguments and vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing his writ petition.

8. At the outset, we have asked learned counsel to address on the enforceability of the Litigation Policy of the State as the appellant had preferred a writ of quo warranto. Learned counsel has referred to the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Man Sukh Das in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 4941/2018 dated 03.07.2018. The Apex Court while hearing a petition coming from State of Rajasthan relating to the appeal having been dismissed on the ground of de