Plea on appointment of Advocate-General rejected

By Our Staff Correspondent

JAIPUR, JULY 10. The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the posts of Advocate-General and Additional Advocate- General are constitutional posts and rejected a writ petition seeking their fresh appointment by advertising the posts. The petitioners - a bunch of lawyers - had also urged the court to declare the persons holding these posts as ab initio void (void since the beginning).

A Division Bench, dismissing the petition at the High Court's principal seat in Jodhpur on Friday, held that the appointments to the posts of Advocate-General and Additional AG were made in accordance with the constitutional provisions. ``These are not posts under the Government service and it is nowhere laid down that they should be advertised,'' the Bench observed.

The Bench - comprising the Chief Justice, Dr. Arunachalam Chettiar Lakshmanan, and Mr. Justice Bhagwati Prasad - rejected the plea to reappoint the government advocates and panel lawyers of various government departments as well. ``These posts are filled up in accordance with the Rajasthan Judicial Manual read with Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code,'' the court said.

The State Government had the liberty to appoint advocates of its choice and confidence in the interest of the State litigation, the 31-page judgment of the court stated and added that the change of Ministry and political party had nothing to do in the matter as ``it is the State Government that makes the appointment and termination.''

The petitioners - Mr. Om Prakash Joshi and others - had contended that a few lawyers had got monopoly in representing the State as their appointment was made in an arbitrary manner ``on likes and dislikes theory.'' The present Government policy in this regard was illegal, the petition had stated, while claiming that there should be an equal distribution of work.

The State Government, however, stated that it was free to select its own lawyers to conduct the cases on its behalf and there was no provision in the Constitution for equal distribution of work and equal opportunity for advocates to seek work and compete for it. These posts did not fall within the definition of government service, pointed out the Advocate General, Mr. S.M. Mehta, who appeared on behalf of the State.

The court agreed with the Government's contention and stated that the petitioners had failed to cite even a single example of arbitrariness in any of the appointments. Though a Government advocate could be said to be a holder of the public office, there was no master and servant relationship between him and the State as the element of subordination and control was missing, the Judges said.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Other States
Previous : Flurry of activity among Khadims