Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner, a practicing advocate, challenging the amendment to the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018, which allowed the appropriate authority to appoint any counsel to any post based on their expertise, effectively bypassing the 10-year experience requirement and subsequent appointment of Padmesh Mishra as Additional Advocate General (AAG) for the State of Rajasthan at the Supreme Court despite not meeting the minimum experience, a single-judge bench of Anil Kumar Upman, J., noted that the matter requires consideration and issued notice of the writ petition and stay application is issued to the respondents.
The petitioner contended that the amendment to the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018, was introduced to align with the National Litigation Policy. Chapter 14 of the 2018 Policy sets forth the criteria for the appointment of state counsel, including a requirement in Clause 14.4 that an aspirant for the role of Additional Advocate General must have a minimum of 10 years of practice in the High Court or Supreme Court.
Vide notification dated 23-08-2024, the State Government amended Chapter 14 by introducing Clause 14.8, which now allows the appropriate authority to appoint any counsel to any post based on their expertise, effectively bypassing the 10-year experience requirement outlined in Clause 14.4. The amendment was approved by the Cabinet on 22-08-2024 and incorporated the following day. The petitioner claimed that the impugned amendment undermines the existing policy by granting unrestricted power to the authorities to appoint counsel without adhering to the experience requirement.
The petitioner further contended that the Mishra was initially appointed as a Panel Lawyer by the Government of Rajasthan on 20-08-2024, however, his appointment was abruptly withdrawn on 23-08-2024, the same day Clause 14.8 was introduced and subsequently, he was appointed as an Additional Advocate General.
The main issues in the present case are —
-
Whether the amendment to the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, specifically the introduction of Clause 14.8, is lawful and valid?
-
Whether the appointment of Padmesh Mishra as Additional Advocate General is in violation of the policy’s original experience requirement?
The Court noted that the matter requires consideration and issued a notice of the writ petition and stay application to the respondents, requiring them to respond by the next hearing date. The Court directed the petitioner to file the necessary requisites within one week, failing which the petition would be dismissed automatically.
[Sunil Samdaria v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2709, Decided on 31-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sunil Samdaria, petitioner in person.