The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed a plea claiming that the appointment of Additional Advocate Generals (AAGs) and law officers in the State were arbitrary and illegal..A Bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Rekha Borana observed that the plea did not mention how the appointments were flawed and how the appointed persons could be considered as lacking in eligibility."No record has been produced to demonstrate that any one of the Law Officers was ineligible for appointment and it is not shown to the Court how the appointments are flawed in law or that the appointees have been favored. The writ petition is conveniently silent on the factual aspects such as the eligibility, credibility, efficiency and standing of the appointed Additional Advocate Generals, Government counsel, Additional Government counsel, etc," the Court observed..The petition was filed by one Ishwar Prasad challenging the appointments of AAGs and law officers through the circulars dated February 12, 2024, and March 12, 2024.The plea alleged that they were issued disregarding the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal. In that case, the top court had held that what holds good for appointment of a public prosecutor as a check on arbitrary exercise of power must, therefore, act as a check on the State’s power to appoint a state counsel as well, especially in situations where the appointment is unregulated by any constitutional or statutory provision.The petitioner further alleged that the appointments violated the Rajasthan Law and Legal Affairs Department Manual, 1999, and the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018, as they were made without public advertisements or adherence to proper procedures.The petitioner also highlighted the lack of reservations for certain classes under relevant state laws and policies. .The State raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the appointments of AAGs and law officers are not considered employment under the State, as there is no master-servant relationship, and they are not paid a salary by the government. It was further added that these roles are purely professional and contractual, following a longstanding practice of appointments made in consultation with the Advocate General and that similar appointments were made after the Assembly elections in 2013 and 2018 without any objections from the petitioner..The State argued that the petitioner deliberately withheld material facts and failed to present the correct legal position. While the writ petition primarily relied on the Brijeshwar Singh Chahal case, the respondents pointed out that the Supreme Court has since made significant departures from that decision in cases such as State of U.P. & Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Sharma and others..Taking into consideration the above contentions, the Court emphasized that vague suggestions or unsupported data were insufficient to challenge the appointments."We are inclined to observe that even if some data are produced that itself would not have been sufficient to question the appointments made through circulars dated 12th February 2024 and 12th March 2024. The appointments made vide circulars dated 12th February 2024 and 12th March 2024 are not open to challenge by making some vague suggestions. The petitioner cannot seek a mandamus against the State-respondents and a certiorari shall not lie in the face of compliances demonstrated before this Court," the Court held.It concluded that the appointments were in compliance with the law and could not be challenged based on unsubstantiated claims and thereby dismissed the plea.Ishwar Prasad appeared in person. Senior Advocate MS Singhvi along with advocate KS Lodha appeared for the State..[Read Order]
The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed a plea claiming that the appointment of Additional Advocate Generals (AAGs) and law officers in the State were arbitrary and illegal..A Bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Rekha Borana observed that the plea did not mention how the appointments were flawed and how the appointed persons could be considered as lacking in eligibility."No record has been produced to demonstrate that any one of the Law Officers was ineligible for appointment and it is not shown to the Court how the appointments are flawed in law or that the appointees have been favored. The writ petition is conveniently silent on the factual aspects such as the eligibility, credibility, efficiency and standing of the appointed Additional Advocate Generals, Government counsel, Additional Government counsel, etc," the Court observed..The petition was filed by one Ishwar Prasad challenging the appointments of AAGs and law officers through the circulars dated February 12, 2024, and March 12, 2024.The plea alleged that they were issued disregarding the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal. In that case, the top court had held that what holds good for appointment of a public prosecutor as a check on arbitrary exercise of power must, therefore, act as a check on the State’s power to appoint a state counsel as well, especially in situations where the appointment is unregulated by any constitutional or statutory provision.The petitioner further alleged that the appointments violated the Rajasthan Law and Legal Affairs Department Manual, 1999, and the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018, as they were made without public advertisements or adherence to proper procedures.The petitioner also highlighted the lack of reservations for certain classes under relevant state laws and policies. .The State raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the appointments of AAGs and law officers are not considered employment under the State, as there is no master-servant relationship, and they are not paid a salary by the government. It was further added that these roles are purely professional and contractual, following a longstanding practice of appointments made in consultation with the Advocate General and that similar appointments were made after the Assembly elections in 2013 and 2018 without any objections from the petitioner..The State argued that the petitioner deliberately withheld material facts and failed to present the correct legal position. While the writ petition primarily relied on the Brijeshwar Singh Chahal case, the respondents pointed out that the Supreme Court has since made significant departures from that decision in cases such as State of U.P. & Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Sharma and others..Taking into consideration the above contentions, the Court emphasized that vague suggestions or unsupported data were insufficient to challenge the appointments."We are inclined to observe that even if some data are produced that itself would not have been sufficient to question the appointments made through circulars dated 12th February 2024 and 12th March 2024. The appointments made vide circulars dated 12th February 2024 and 12th March 2024 are not open to challenge by making some vague suggestions. The petitioner cannot seek a mandamus against the State-respondents and a certiorari shall not lie in the face of compliances demonstrated before this Court," the Court held.It concluded that the appointments were in compliance with the law and could not be challenged based on unsubstantiated claims and thereby dismissed the plea.Ishwar Prasad appeared in person. Senior Advocate MS Singhvi along with advocate KS Lodha appeared for the State..[Read Order]
