Beyond the Reach of PIL: Rajasthan High Court Clarifies Boundaries in Service Appointments

In a significant order clarifying the scope of judicial intervention, the Rajasthan High Court has held that disputes surrounding the appointment of government advocates do not fall under the purview of criminal writ petitions or Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anand Sharma, underscored that such matters are strictly service-related and urged individuals to seek appropriate legal remedies rather than expecting court intervention via suo motu proceedings.

The Backdrop: A Mystery in the Courtroom

The proceedings originated when a learned Single Judge took suo motu cognizance of a letter dated April 16, 2024, addressed by the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court to the State’s Law Department. The letter concerned the High Court’s consent for the appointment of advocate Brahmanand Sandu as Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General.

The Single Judge had formed a preliminary opinion that the State’s delay in issuing the appointment order, despite the consultative process under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), might be viewed as a contemptuous or derogatory act by the authorities. Consequently, the matter was elevated to a criminal writ petition.

Arguments from the Bar and Bench

During the subsequent hearing before the Division Bench, the State’s Additional Advocate General, Mr. B.S. Chhaba, argued that the issue could not be classified as a criminal matter, much less one involving contempt. The State maintained that the consultative process had been properly initiated and was simply pending internal government consideration.

Counsel for the High Court reiterated that while the consultative process was mandated by law, the final decision-making power remained with the government. Mr. Brahmanand Sandu, the individual whose appointment was at the center of the dispute, informed the court that he had received no communication regarding the reasons for the delay in his formal appointment.

The Court’s Reasoning: Where PILs End

The Division Bench dismantled the perception that the administrative delay constituted a criminal wrong. The Court emphasized two primary legal touchstones: 1. Nature of the Dispute : The court clarified that the appointment of a government advocate is an administrative service issue. 2. Exclusion of PILs : Reaffirming a well-settled legal position, the Court stated that Public Interest Litigation cannot be used as a vehicle to resolve individual service grievances.

The Bench further clarified that the non-issuance of an appointment order, following the consultative process, does not inherently constitute contempt of court.

Key Observations

The judgment offers clear guidance on the limitations of the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction:

• "Merely because the matter relates to appointment of a Government Advocate after consultation with the High Court, as required under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. (as it then existed), it cannot be treated as a criminal matter. This is essentially a service issue."
• "It is well settled that no PIL can be entertained in service matters."
• "We are also of the view that non-issuance of any appointment order after consultation with the High Court, as provided under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C., does not amount to contempt."
• "If the concerned person in whose case consultative process has been adopted... he has not been appointed, it is only an individual grievance. Such person, if so advised, may approach the Court by filing appropriate petition."

Final Verdict: A Return to Standard Procedure

Finding no grounds to proceed further, the High Court closed the suo motu petition. By doing so, the Court has signaled that while the judiciary plays a role in the consultative process of appointments, it will not assume the mantle of an oversight body for internal government staffing delays through criminal writs.

The order ensures that the doors remain open for the affected party to pursue a standard service-related petition if they feel aggrieved, ensuring that legal processes for individuals are kept distinct from the broader objectives of Public Interest Litigation.