Minimum 10 Years’ Practice Requirement Not Mandatory: Rajasthan HC Dismisses Petition Challenging Appointment of Padmesh Mishra As Addl. Advocate General
The Rajasthan High Court rejected the contention that the experience of 10 years of practice is a mandatory requirement for the appointment of an AAG.
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the appointment of Padmesh Mishra as the Additional Advocate General (AAG) for the Government of Rajasthan.
The Court dismissed the Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Petitioner, a lawyer, who also questioned the validity of Clause 14.8 which was only incorporated in the State Litigation Policy of Rajasthan, 2018 (Policy) on 23rd August 2024. The Petitioner alleged that the Policy was amended in an “arbitrary and hasty manner” just to grant appointment to Padmesh Mishra (Respondent) as the AAG.
A Single Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that “this Court finds that perusal of Clause 14.4 itself as a whole indicates that this clause provides power to the State Government to appoint an Advocate on the post of Additional Advocate General, following the criteria prescribed by the State Government or as per law for the time being in force and the requirement of possessing minimum experience of 10 years' practice has not been held as an essential and mandatory pre-requisite for appointment of Addition Advocate Generals.”
The Petitioner appeared in-person, while AAG Bharat Vyas and Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta appeared for the Respondents.
Petitioner’s Contentions
Petitioner raised the following contentions:
- That the Respondent did not have the minimum experience of practice as an Advocate for 10 years, which is mandatorily required as per Clause 14.4 of the Policy (Clause 14.4 was not amended, rather still subsists even after insertion of Clause 14.8 in the policy).
- That the appointment of the Respondent was not made with effective consultation of the Advocate General, which was essentially required as per Clause 14.2 of the Policy.
- That the appointment of the Respondent as the AAG of the State lacked the eligibility of the required minimum experience of 10 years' practice as an Advocate, annulling his appointment.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court referred to the decision by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Ishwar Prasad v. The State of Rajasthan, where the appointment of the AAGs and Law Officers by the State Government was under challenge. The Division Bench clearly observed that the post of an AAG was not in the nature of civil or public post.
Relying on the same, the Court held, “Thus, in view of above, the issue requires no further discussion by this Court, keeping in mind the binding effect of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court on the Single Bench. Accordingly, the contention of petitioner cannot be accepted in his favour.”
Next, the Court addressed the issue regarding the possession of the minimum experience of practice in High Court/ Supreme Court for a period of 10 years.
The newly inserted Clause 14.8 to the Policy which is under challenge reads as- “14.8- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Policy, the authority of the appropriate level shall have power to appoint any counsel to any post after considering his expertise in the respective field."
The Court held that the contention of the Petitioner that experience of 10 years' practice in High Court/Supreme Court is a mandatory requirement for appointment of AAG “does not worth merits acceptance, although the State Government may also consider and keep such factor in mind, while making appointment of Additional Advocate Generals.”
The Bench also remarked that “the input for levelling such allegations of arbitrariness and colourable exercise of powers by the Government of Rajasthan in introducing Clause 14.8, are merely a sequel of events that prior to appointment of respondent No.2 as an Additional Advocate General, he was appointed as panel lawyer in the Hon'ble Supreme Court”
Consequently, the Court held, “The sequence of events may be a coincidence, but cannot be made a basis to draw an assumption of arbitrariness, biasness or colourable exercise of powers by the Cabinet. Merely, on the basis of such input, provided by the petitioner, Clause 14.8 may not be declared arbitrary, illegal and invalid, moreso when legislative competence to introduce such amendment in the policy, is unquestioned and beyond under challenge.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Sunil Samdaria v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:4973)
Appearance:
Respondents: AAG Bharat Vyas; Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta; Advocates Jay Vardhan Joshi, Anima Chaturvedi, Niti Jain, Praveer Sharma, Harshwardhan Katara and Shashwat Purohit
