Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 9296

Ganesh Ram Meena, J
Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jaipur Development Authority – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18266/2025 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6626/2021 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6629/2021 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9107/2021 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9112/2021 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9751/2021 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18267/2025 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18268/2025 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18269/2025 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18270/2025 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18271/2025 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18272/2025 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18273/2025 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18274/2025 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18275/2025 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18321/2025 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18680/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kamlakar Sharma, Yogesh Kalla, Ranvijay Singh, Dinesh Yadav, Ankit Yadav, R.N. Mathur, Sahil Sharma, Ashish Sharma, Ravi Shanker Sharma, Pawan Sharma, Azad Ahmed
For the Respondents: Abhishek Sharma, Pooja Sharma, Rishabh Khandelwal, Ajay Shukla, Raghav Sharma

State instrumentalities must act reasonably and non-arbitrarily in contractual matters. Where specific internal conditions for removal exist, termination without a reasoned basis or contrary to those conditions violates the constitutional mandate of fairness, rendering the action subject to judicial review.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Equality before law - Arbitrariness - Contractual service engagement - Principles of natural justice - Doctrine of pleasure - Judicial review of administrative action - State instrumentalities are required to act in a bona fide manner and avoid arbitrariness - A change in policy or executive action must be made fairly and not arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria - Arbitrary action of the state is justiciable even in matters involving contractual engagements - (Paras 16, 20, 22, 29)

(B) Service Law - Engagement of legal assistants - Termination of contract - Requirement of reasons - Where terms of engagement specify that services are to be evaluated based on performance, removal without recording reasons for dissatisfaction constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power - Arbitrariness can be inferred from non-compliance with prescribed modes of exercise of power or lack of reasonable justification - (Paras 17, 18, 19, 39)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were engaged as legal assistants on a contractual basis to coordinate between the authority’s office and its panel counsel, due to a scarcity of legal officers. The authority issued various orders over time, which mandated that these assistants could only be removed if their work performance was found to be unsatisfactory after a formal report. The petitioners' services were cancelled without any such report of unsatisfactory performance or any provided reason, allegedly at the instance of a political head, despite previous certifications of their work being qualitative and satisfactory.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while the engagement may be contractual, the state entity remains bound by the requirements of fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14. The failure to follow the specific condition regarding performance evaluation renders the termination illegal. Furthermore, the court noted that legal professionals possess dignity and cannot be terminated at the whims of an authority without a fair procedure.

Issues: Whether the removal of the petitioners from their contractual positions without assigning reasons and in violation of established internal conditions was arbitrary and violative of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The state and its instrumentalities must act in accordance with their own prescribed guidelines. When an authority provides specific grounds for removal in its engagement policy, it cannot bypass those procedural safeguards or act without a reasoned, non-arbitrary basis, as such conduct constitutes a violation of constitutional equality and fairness.

Result: Petitions allowed; impugned orders of cancellation quashed with directions to frame comprehensive guidelines for future engagements.

Table of Content
1. engagement of legal assistants by public authorities and the procedural requirements for their removal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments concerning arbitrariness in removing legal practitioners without performance-based justification. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. state actions infringing upon fair procedure and established contractual guidelines constitute arbitrary conduct. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. judicial review of administrative discretion in terminating professional engagements of law officers. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. quashing arbitrary orders and mandating a comprehensive transparent policy for public law firm appointments. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)

1. Since a common question is involved in all these writ petitions, hence, they are being decided by this common order.

2. The dispute which has been brought before this Court by filing all these writ petitions is with regard to removal of Assistant Advocates appointed/ engaged by the respondent-Jaipur Development Authority (for short ‘the JDA’) so as to coordinate in between the office of the JDA and the Panel Counsels of the JDA, to submit the reply on behalf of the JDA well in time. The engagement of the Assistant Advocates has been made because of the scarcity of Law Officers in the JDA.

3. In-stead of recording the facts of each and every case, for consideration of the dispute, the Court deems proper to record the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18266/2025.

4. The JDA issued an office order dated 11.09.2009 (Annex.15 in the writ petition) so as to engage the Assistant Advocates in the JDA to coordinate amongst the Officers-in charge and the Panel Counsels of the JDA. The order dated 11.09.2009 contains the work to be performed by the Assistant Advocates and the eligibility for engagement. The said order also contains that in case the work performance of the Assistant Advocates is not found to be satisfactory, they can be removed without any notice.

5. Another order dated 22.05.2014 (Annex.2 in the writ petition) was also issued by the JDA superseding the earlier orders wherein also they have incorporated condition No.7 that if the work performance of the Assistant Advocates is not found to be satisfactory, they can be removed on the report of the Zone Commissioner.

6. Another order dated 18.05.2022 (Annex.5 in the writ petition) was also issued by the JDA wherein also the similar provisions were incorporated.

7. The petitioner- Pratap Singh was engaged as an Assistant Advocate vide order dated 21.12.2009 on consideration of his application submitted in furtherance of the order dated 11.09.2009. Though in the order of engagement/ appointment dated 11.09.2009, no specific period for which he has been engaged, is mentioned. However, the petitioner- Pratap Singh continued for a long and his engagement was cancelled vide order dated 14.11.2025 and by the same order other petitioners who were engaged as Assistant Advocates by the JDA, their engagement was also cancelled. The petitioner by filing the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 14.11.2025 to the extent of cancellation of his engagement as an Assistant Advocate and similarly in other petitions the petitioners therein have challenged the cancellation of their engagements.

8. Shri Kamlakar Sharma Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Yogesh Kalla and Mr. Ranvijay Singh, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order of cancelling the engagement / appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Advocates is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and is contrary to the terms and conditions as provided in the orders issued by the respondent- JDA time to time. He submitted that the orders issued by the JDA provide for cancelling the engagement or removal of Assistant Advocates in case their work performance is not found to be satisfact

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 9296

Cases Referred (3)