Lawyers Can’t Be Treated As Servants; Engagement Can’t Be Terminated Arbitrarily: Rajasthan High Court Directs JDA To Retain Assistant Advocates
The Court held that the dignity of the legal profession cannot be compromised by arbitrary State action, and that engagement or disengagement of advocates must adhere to reasonable terms, conditions, and procedure.
Justice Ganesh Ram Meena, Rajasthan High Court
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur has held that lawyers engaged by State authorities cannot be treated as expendable or subjected to arbitrary termination, while quashing the cancellation of engagement of Assistant Advocates by the Jaipur Development Authority.
The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging orders issued by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) cancelling the engagement of Assistant Advocates who had been appointed to coordinate legal work between officers and panel counsel.
A Bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena observed: “… lawyers have some dignity and they cannot be treated like a servant, … their engagement or disengagement has to be as per the reasonable terms and conditions, … the dignity of a lawyer cannot be put to compromise, … the respondent authorities cannot be allowed to engage or disengage a lawyer for a legal work at their whims, …the engagement or disengagement has to be in accordance with some procedure and terms and conditions”.
Senior Advocates Kamlakar Sharma and R.N. Mathur appeared for the petitioners, while the Jaipur Development Authority was represented by Advocate Abhishek Sharma and others.
Background
The dispute arose from the cancellation of the engagement of several Assistant Advocates by the Jaipur Development Authority through a common order. These advocates had been engaged over time to assist in legal coordination work due to a shortage of law officers within the authority.
The engagement of Assistant Advocates was governed by a series of administrative orders that prescribed their duties and conditions of engagement. These conditions provided that disengagement could take place if their work performance was found unsatisfactory or in cases of misconduct or indiscipline.
The petitioners contended that their work had consistently been found satisfactory and that their disengagement was neither based on any adverse material nor preceded by any procedure. It was further argued that the cancellation was arbitrary and allegedly influenced by extraneous considerations rather than performance.
On the other hand, the respondent authority argued that the engagement was contractual and temporary in nature, and that the petitioners had no vested right to continue. It was also contended that the authority could engage or disengage advocates at its discretion.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined the terms and conditions governing the engagement of Assistant Advocates and found that removal was permissible only in specific circumstances, particularly where work performance was unsatisfactory or where misconduct was established.
It noted that the respondents had failed to produce any material indicating unsatisfactory performance or misconduct on the part of the petitioners. On the contrary, the record indicated that the performance of several petitioners had been certified as satisfactory.
The Court held that in the absence of any such material, the cancellation of the engagement could not be sustained and amounted to arbitrariness. It observed that State instrumentalities are bound by Article 14 of the Constitution and cannot act arbitrarily or unreasonably, even in matters of contractual engagement.
Relying upon the principles laid down in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. (1991), the Court reiterated that engagement of lawyers by the State carries a public element and is subject to constitutional scrutiny on the touchstone of fairness and non-arbitrariness.
Significantly, the Court emphasised the professional dignity attached to legal practitioners, observing that such engagements cannot be treated as purely casual or subject to unfettered discretion. It held that “their engagement or disengagement has to be as per the reasonable terms and conditions:.
The Court further observed that even in contractual matters, State action must satisfy the requirements of reasonableness and fairness, and cannot be exercised on mere whim or external influence.
“The respondents neglected the terms and conditions incorporated by them in the orders issued by them, and therefore the act of disengagement or cancellation of the engagement of the petitioners from being Assistant Advocates is held to be an arbitrary act of the respondents, and that deserves to be quashed and set aside”, the Bench concluded.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders cancelling the engagement of the petitioners as Assistant Advocates were quashed. The Court directed the Jaipur Development Authority to continue the petitioners in their roles on existing terms, conditions, and remuneration.
Cause Title: Sri Pratap Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:12194)
Appearances
Petitioners: Kamlakar Sharma, Senior Advocate with Yogesh Kalla and Ranvijay Singh; R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate with Sahil Sharma and Ashish Sharma; other counsels
Respondents: Abhishek Sharma; Rishabh Khandelwal; Ajay Shukla, with Raghav Sharma; others