2 hours ago
2
Regarding the objection implicit deficiency of 10 years’ experience, the tribunal said that this request “has not been held arsenic an indispensable and mandatory pre-requisite for assignment of Additional Advocate Generals.”
Stating that the State Litigation Policy does not person a statutory force, the Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition which challenged Padmesh Mishra’s assignment arsenic the Additional Advocate General for Rajasthan authorities successful the Supreme Court.
In his petition, Jaipur based advocator Sunil Samdaria, 50, had said that Mishra was appointed arsenic an AAG adjacent though helium did not person the requisite 10 years’ acquisition to beryllium eligible arsenic an AAG arsenic per the Policy; that his assignment was not made with effectual consultation of the Advocate General and was frankincense successful usurpation of rules; and that to circumvent the rules, the Law section had added different clause to the State Litigation Policy enabling it to name anyone connected immoderate station connected the ground of their expertise.
Samdaria had prayed that Mishra beryllium stopped from functioning arsenic the AAG and that the bid effecting alteration successful the Policy excessively should beryllium stayed.
In its bid dated February 4, a seat of Justice Sudesh Bansal said that though the authorities authorities is expected to travel the guidelines prescribed successful the Litigation Policy, “it is besides arsenic existent that specified argumentation is successful the quality of enforcement instructions for guidance, which cannot beryllium claimed to person a statutory unit similar a legislation/ ineligible statute earlier the tribunal of law.”
Rejecting the situation to the summation of a caller clause successful the policy, the HC said that “the Supreme Court has held that the Courts ought not to task into the question arsenic to whether a peculiar nationalist argumentation is omniscient and the Court should beryllium loathe successful interference with argumentation decisions.”
Regarding the objection implicit deficiency of 10 years’ experience, the tribunal said that this request “has not been held arsenic an indispensable and mandatory pre-requisite for assignment of Additional Advocate Generals.”
Initially, Mishra was appointed arsenic a Panel Lawyer successful the SC connected August 20, 2024. Three days later, this was withdrawn to name him arsenic the AAG. The bid withdrawing Padmesh’s assignment arsenic the Panel Lawyer, the notification connected alteration successful Policy, and Padmesh’s assignment arsenic the AAG are each dated August 23.
Story continues beneath this ad
Samdaria had contended that this “clearly demonstrates that full workout was done to bestow benevolence” upon Mishra by the authorities authorities which makes Mishra’s assignment “grossly illegal, invalid and per se arbitrary.”
However, the Court said that “The series of events whitethorn beryllium a coincidence, but cannot beryllium made a ground to gully an presumption of arbitrariness, biasness oregon colourable workout of powers by the Cabinet,” and that the Cabinet did its “due diligence.”
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
.png "indianexpress.")
.png "khaleejtimes")
.png "arabnews")
.png "gulfnews"){kind=logo}
English (US) · 
Hindi (IN) ·