On February 6, 2025, the Rajasthan High Court delivered an important judgment dismissing a petition that challenged the appointment of Padmesh Mishra as the Additional Advocate General (AAG) of Rajasthan

On February 6, 2025, the Rajasthan High Court delivered an important judgment dismissing a petition that challenged the appointment of Padmesh Mishra as the Additional Advocate General (AAG) of Rajasthan. This legal case involved the interpretation of specific provisions in the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018, and raised questions about the requirements for appointing legal professionals to the position of Additional Advocate General in the state of Rajasthan. The petitioner, Sunil Samdaria, an advocate himself, filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the appointment of Padmesh Mishra based on several grounds, including the contention that Mishra did not meet the requisite experience for the position.

The controversy in this case began when Sunil Samdaria, a lawyer, argued that Padmesh Mishra did not satisfy the mandatory 10 years of legal practice requirement, which, according to Clause 14.4 of the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, was necessary for an individual to be appointed to the post of Additional Advocate General. The petitioner specifically pointed to a recent amendment to the Policy, introduced on August 23, 2024, which added Clause 14.8. This amendment allowed the state government to appoint any counsel to such posts after considering their expertise in the relevant field, regardless of their years of practice. Samdaria claimed that this amendment was made in an arbitrary and hasty manner solely to facilitate the appointment of Padmesh Mishra as the Additional Advocate General, and he questioned the legality and fairness of this decision. The crux of the petitioner's argument was that the amendment to the policy allowed the government to appoint someone without meeting the 10-year experience requirement, which, in his opinion, was a violation of the established policy and an unjustifiable act of favoritism.

In response to these claims, the Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Justice Sudesh Bansal, examined the various aspects of the case and the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy. The key point of contention was whether the 10 years of legal practice was a mandatory qualification for the appointment of Additional Advocate General or whether it was subject to discretion, as suggested by the amendment to the policy in 2024. The Court noted that Clause 14.4 of the Policy, which originally outlined the requirements for the position, did mention that candidates should have a minimum of 10 years of experience in practice. However, the Court emphasized that this was not an absolute requirement, and the government retained the power to consider other factors such as the candidate's expertise, legal acumen, and overall contribution to the legal profession. The Court interpreted Clause 14.4 in a manner that allowed the government to exercise flexibility when making such appointments, thus determining that the requirement for 10 years of practice was not a mandatory prerequisite for the post of Additional Advocate General.

The Court further elaborated on the provisions of Clause 14.8, which was inserted into the policy in 2024 and gave the government the authority to appoint any lawyer based on their expertise in the respective field, even if they did not meet the 10-year practice criterion. The petitioner had argued that this change was made specifically to accommodate Mishra's appointment, but the Court rejected this argument, stating that the amendment was a lawful exercise of the government’s powers to modify the policy as it deemed necessary. The Court found that the Rajasthan government had the discretion to make such amendments to the policy to ensure that individuals with the required legal knowledge and capabilities could be appointed, even if they did not have the requisite years of experience.

Justice Bansal also referred to a previous judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ishwar Prasad v. The State of Rajasthan, where the issue of appointing Additional Advocate Generals was discussed. In that case, the Division Bench had ruled that the position of Additional Advocate General was not a civil or public service post that required strict adherence to civil service rules and qualifications. This ruling played a key role in the current case, as it established the principle that appointments to the position of Additional Advocate General could be made by the state government based on factors other than years of practice. The Division Bench had held that the role of an Additional Advocate General was a special legal position, and the government was not bound by the usual qualifications required for civil service posts. Justice Bansal cited this ruling to underscore that the state government had the discretion to appoint legal professionals to the position without the need for a rigid adherence to the 10-year practice requirement.

One of the key issues raised by the petitioner was the claim that the amendment to Clause 14.8 had been introduced in an arbitrary and hurried manner, solely to accommodate Padmesh Mishra’s appointment. Samdaria suggested that the amendment was a response to Mishra’s appointment, and he accused the government of unfairly changing the policy to fit Mishra’s qualifications. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the introduction of Clause 14.8 was not an act of arbitrariness or bias. The Court emphasized that the amendment allowed for greater flexibility in the appointment process, and such amendments were well within the legislative competence of the state government. The Court also pointed out that the mere sequence of events, where Mishra was appointed shortly after the amendment was made, could not be used as evidence of unfairness or favoritism. The Court noted that the amendment was not inherently illegal, and the government was well within its rights to amend the policy as it saw fit, particularly to allow for more qualified individuals to be considered for the post of Additional Advocate General.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the petitioner’s concern about the lack of consultation with the Advocate General during the appointment process. The Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, under Clause 14.2, mandates that the appointment of the Additional Advocate General should be made after consulting the Advocate General. Samdaria argued that Mishra’s appointment did not comply with this provision. However, the Court found that there was no violation of this requirement, as the policy provided the government with the discretion to appoint legal professionals to the post. While the consultation with the Advocate General was a standard procedure, the Court found no indication that the lack of consultation in Mishra’s case had affected the legality or fairness of the appointment.

In its final ruling, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the appointment of Padmesh Mishra as the Additional Advocate General for the state of Rajasthan. The Court found that the petitioner’s arguments lacked merit and that the government had acted within its rights in appointing Mishra. The Court’s decision reinforced the principle that the government has the discretion to make appointments to legal positions like that of Additional Advocate General based on expertise and qualifications, rather than rigidly adhering to a specific set of qualifications like the 10-year practice requirement.

The ruling also highlighted the flexibility of the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy in adapting to the needs of the government, allowing for the appointment of highly qualified individuals, even if they did not meet the strict requirements outlined in the policy. The Court’s interpretation of the policy provisions allowed the state government to exercise its discretion in a manner that ensured the appointment of competent legal professionals to critical positions, such as the Additional Advocate General.

This judgment is significant not only for the case at hand but also for future appointments to legal posts in Rajasthan. It sets a precedent for the interpretation of legal policies that govern appointments and reinforces the importance of allowing the government flexibility when making such decisions. The decision also underscores the idea that the appointment of individuals to such positions should be based on merit and expertise, rather than solely on years of experience, thereby promoting a more dynamic and responsive approach to legal appointments in the state.

The ruling also had wider implications for the legal profession, particularly in the context of government appointments. By affirming the government’s discretion to make appointments based on expertise, the Court ensured that the legal profession remains inclusive, offering opportunities to individuals with a broad range of skills and experience.

Sani