Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the appointment of Padmesh Mishra as Additional Advocate General, ruling that the State Litigation Policy 2018 is only a guideline and not legally enforceable. This blog explains the judgment, legal reasoning, and implications for public law appointments in India.
Introduction
In a significant decision, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the appointment of Padmesh Mishra as the Additional Advocate General (AAG) for the State before the Supreme Court.
The Court ruled that the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018 is merely a guideline and does not have statutory force, thereby rejecting the challenge to the appointment.
Background of the Case
The appointment was challenged by a practicing advocate who argued that the appointee did not meet the required 10 years of practice as prescribed under the Litigation Policy.
The Single Judge had dismissed the plea earlier, after which a special appeal was filed before the Division Bench.
- Challenge based on lack of required experience
- Reliance placed on State Litigation Policy, 2018
- Appeal filed after Single Judge dismissal
Key Judicial Findings
Litigation Policy Is Not Binding Law
- The policy is advisory in nature
- It does not have statutory force
- Cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction
State’s Discretion in Appointment
- Selection of law officers lies within executive domain
- Courts cannot interfere with the State’s choice of counsel
- Experience alone is not the sole indicator of advocacy skills
Distinction Between Constitutional and Non-Constitutional Posts
- Advocate General is a constitutional post under Article 165
- Additional Advocate General is not a constitutional office
- Appointment of AAG falls under executive discretion
Gazette Notification Clarified
- Publication in Gazette does not make policy statutory
- Policy amendments remain non-binding unless enacted as law
Nature of Government Counsel Roles
- AAGs function as department-specific legal representatives
- No fixed tenure or statutory protection
- Assignments may vary based on government requirements
Final Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Appointment of AAG upheld
- No interference with executive decision
Significance of the Judgment
- Clarifies that policies do not have binding legal force
- Reinforces executive autonomy in legal appointments
- Limits judicial interference in non-statutory matters
- Provides guidance on interpretation of government policies
Case Details
Case Title: Sunil Samdaria v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2025)
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Conclusion
This judgment highlights the principle that non-statutory policies cannot override executive discretion in matters of appointment.
It sets an important precedent by clarifying that government retains the authority to select legal professionals based on suitability rather than rigid policy criteria.
Also Read
Supreme Court Ruling: Judicial Officers with Combined Experience Can Apply for District Judge Posts
