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 reaffirmed the appointment of Padmesh Mishra as the Additional Advocate General (AAG) for the State of Rajasthan before the Supreme Court. The challenge to his appointment was rooted in allegations that he did not meet the 10-year practice requirement prescribed in the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018.
However, the Division Bench ruled that the Litigation Policy is merely a guideline and does not carry statutory force, thereby rejecting the plea and upholding the State’s right to choose its legal representatives.
Background of the Case
The appointment was challenged by a practicing advocate who argued that Mishra lacked the required 10 years of experience mandated by the Litigation Policy. The Single Judge had previously dismissed the challenge, prompting the appellant to file a special appeal.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu heard the matter and upheld the Single Judge’s order.
Key Judicial Findings
State Litigation Policy is Not Statutory
The Court clarified that the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018 is an advisory document, not a binding rule. Therefore, it cannot be enforced through a writ of quo warranto.
Policies, the Bench noted, do not automatically gain statutory status unless explicitly incorporated into law.
Court Cannot Interfere with the State’s Choice of Counsel
The judgment emphasized that selecting an Advocate General, Additional Advocate General, or government counsel falls within the exclusive domain of the State Government.
The Court highlighted that:
- Advocacy skills do not strictly correlate with years of experience.
- Even highly knowledgeable individuals (e.g., law professors) may not necessarily possess courtroom advocacy skills.
- Therefore, no rigid rule should dictate eligibility for government law offices.
Advocate General vs. Additional Advocate General
The Court drew a distinction between:
- Advocate General, a constitutional post under Article 165.
- Additional Advocate General, which is not a constitutional office and does not carry the same public office attributes.
Thus, the eligibility and appointment criteria for AAGs fall under executive discretion, not constitutional compulsion.
Gazette Notification Does Not Imply Statutory Amendment
The appellant argued that an amendment to Clause 14.8 of the Litigation Policy—published in the Gazette—gave it statutory character.
The Court rejected this, clarifying that:
- The Gazette entry only reflected modification to policy, not statutory rules.
- Hence, it could not be treated as a rule under Article 309 or related provisions.
Nature of Government Counsels
The Bench explained that:
- AAGs are department-specific counsels whose assignments may change from time to time.
- They do not hold tenure-based posts.
They assist the Advocate General and represent departments based on briefs given to them.
Thus, they cannot be equated with statutory or constitutional public office holders.
Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court’s ruling in Sunil Samdaria v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2025) underscores the judicial restraint exercised when reviewing government decisions regarding appointment of law officers.
The judgment affirms that:
- Policies cannot override executive discretion,
- Non-statutory guidelines cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction, and
- Government retains autonomy in selecting legal experts best suited to represent it.
This decision will serve as an important precedent in matters involving public law appointments and interpretation of non-statutory government policies.
Supreme Court Ruling: Judicial Officers with Combined Experience Can Apply for District Judge Posts
