Delay In Government Advocate’s Appointment Not Criminal Or Contemptuous, Merely A Service Matter: Rajasthan High Court
The single judge had treated the matter as a criminal writ petition.
The Rajasthan High Court has closed a suo motu criminal writ petition that had been initiated by a single judge over the non-issuance of an official government order for the appointment of Advocate as Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General, despite the High Court’s earlier consent.
The proceedings had originated after two advocates submitted before the Court a photocopy of a letter dated April 16, 2024, issued by the High Court’s Registrar General to the Principal Secretary, Law & Legal Affairs Department. The letter conveyed the High Court’s concurrence for appointing respondent 4 as Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General and Additional Public Prosecutor at the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, under Section 24(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
Upon seeing the letter and noting the delay in the issuance of the corresponding government order, the single judge had treated the matter as a criminal writ petition and directed that notices be issued to the concerned authorities. The judge also summoned the Principal Secretary of the Law Department to appear in person before the Court, along with the original file and documents related to the appointment process.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anand Sharma ruled that the matter did not constitute contempt of court, nor could it be considered a criminal issue.
The Division Bench found that this approach was legally unsustainable. It stated that the subject matter of the writ petition was essentially a service matter, concerning the appointment of a government law officer after consultation with the High Court. "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,” the bench observed.
During the proceedings, the Division Bench noted that the advocates who originally presented the letter before the single judge were not present before it. It remained unclear on whose instructions they had acted or whether they had proper authority to do so.
The Division Bench concluded that the issue raised was at most an “individual grievance” on the part of the advocate, and did not merit criminal writ proceedings. The Court held that respondent, if aggrieved, is at liberty to seek redress by filing an appropriate petition.
Accordingly, the suo motu plea was dismissed, with liberty granted to pursue any legal remedies available to him under law.
Cause Title: Suo Moto v. The Chief Secretay & Ors., [2025:RJ-JP:14869-DB]
Appearance:
Respondents: Senior Advocate A.K. Sharma, AAG Vishnu Kant Sharma, Madhav Dadhich, B.S. Chhaba, with Advocates Avinash Chaudhary, Hardik Singh & Yuvika Pilania