Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 9476

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
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 in accordance with their own established guidelines for termination. An arbitrary termination of contractual engagements, ignoring stipulated criteria such as performance evaluation, is subject to judicial review under Article 14 of the Constitution, as such actions must not be informed by whim or political influence.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Public Office - Arbitrariness in State action - Engagement of professionals in public bodies - Termination of service without assigning reasons or contrary to established terms and conditions - Principles of natural justice apply to State actions, even in contractual matters, to prevent arbitrariness and ensure fairness in administrative decisions - An action that violates the prescribed mode of engagement or removes an individual without valid reason when performance is satisfactory, is arbitrary and subject to judicial review. (Paras 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 31)

(B) Administrative Law - Fairness in State action - Doctrine of Pleasure - Scope of judicial review - State instrumentalities act in the public interest and are bound by their own guidelines - When terms of engagement provide for removal based on unsatisfactory performance, removal sans such findings is illegal. (Paras 18, 20, 31, 32)

Facts of the case:
A public authority engaged certain professionals as assistants for legal coordination. These engagements were governed by specific orders containing terms and conditions, including provisions for removal if performance was found unsatisfactory. The authority later terminated these engagements en masse without any report or justification regarding unsatisfactory performance, allegedly under the direction of a political authority. The affected professionals challenged their removal as being arbitrary, discriminatory, and in violation of their engagement terms.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the authority had failed to demonstrate any valid or objective reason for the removals. The administrative actions were taken without reference to the stipulated internal criteria, specifically the absence of any report citing unsatisfactory work. The court held that while the State has the authority to engage professionals of its choice, any termination must be reasonable and compliant with the procedural framework established by the authority itself.

Issues: Whether the removal of professionals from contractual engagements by a public authority, without conducting a performance assessment as required by its own guidelines, constitutes an arbitrary and illegal act reviewable under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that public bodies are bound by their own internal circulars and regulations. In cases where the authority stipulates that removal is permissible only upon a finding of unsatisfactory performance, it cannot bypass this requirement through summary termination. Any departure from established criteria, especially when such actions lack record-based justification, constitutes arbitrariness, which is reviewable by the court to uphold the rule of law and prevent the abuse of discretionary powers.

Result: Writ petitions allowed. Orders of cancellation of engagement quashed and set aside. The authority directed to continue the petitioners and frame a comprehensive and transparent policy for future engagements and disengagements.

Table of Content
1. engagement of assistant advocates under jda and their subsequent collective removal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. contention regarding arbitrary removal versus contractual status and doctrine of pleasure. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. requirement to act non-arbitrarily in contractual matters where guidelines for removal exist. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. judicial review of administrative action and the necessity of adhering to established procedural guidelines. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. quashing arbitrary termination and mandating a formal policy for future engagements. (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 satisfactory in the report of Zone Commissioner. He also submitted that as per document Annex.13 dated 11.11.2025

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 9476

Cases Referred (2)