ISHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge appointment of the Additional Advocate Generals and Law Officers made through the circulars dtd. 12/2/2024 and 12/3/2024 which in his opinion have been issued ignoring the judgment in "State of Punjab and Anr. v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal and Anr., (2016) 6 SCC 1".

(2.) The petitioner has labeled the circulars under challenge as arbitrary and illegal on the ground that the orders are issued for engagement of the Additional Advocate Generals and Law Officers without following the mandate and procedure laid down under the Rajasthan Law and Legal Affairs Department Manual, 1999 (in short, 'Rajasthan Manual') and the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018. The petitioner lays a challenge to the circulars dtd. 12/2/2024 and 12/3/2024 also on the ground that appointment of the Additional Advocate Generals and Law Officers was made without wide publicity through advertisement in the local newspapers and inviting applications for such posts and mere recommendation of the Advocate General would not suffice. The petitioner criticizes the action of the respondent-State in invalidating the provisions under Chapter 14 of the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy and sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Special Backward Classes and Economically Backward Classes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointments and Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 2008 and not providing reservation to this class of persons while making appointments of the Law Officers. The petitioner claims that he is a renowned social worker and whistle blower who as its national president is leading "Lashkar-E-Hind" that has thousands of members all over the country. According to the petitioner, Lashkar-E-Hind is a non- government organization with aims and objects of fighting crime, corruption and terrorism and is registered with the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Thane under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1860 and the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The petitioner states that he has filed this writ petition in his individual capacity and on behalf of Lashkar-E-Hind. He further claims that he made a thorough research and has reasonable knowledge of law and he is a public-spirited retired person who has filed many petitions in the High Court and Supreme Court and succeeded in his efforts to further the public interest. He further states that he has filed this writ petition pro bono to achieve the constitutional mandate under Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the respondent-State has violated the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy in making appointment of the Law Officers.

(3.) The petitioner has made the following prayers in this writ petition:-