SUNIL SAMDARIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of both parties, the writ petition has been heard finally on merits at the admission stage.

(2.) Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , has been preferred by the petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate, challenging the appointment of respondent No.2 as an Additional Advocate General for Government of Rajasthan to appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, made by respondent No.1 vide order dated 23 rd August 2024. Petitioner has also questioned the validity of Clause 14.8 incorporated in the State Litigation Policy of Rajasthan- 2018 on 23 rd August 2024 itself, alleging that the State Litigation Policy-2018 has been amended in an arbitrary and hasty manner, by incorporating Clause 14.8 therein, just to grant appointment to respondent No.2 as Additional Advocate General, despite the fact that he lacks minimum experience of practice of 10 years' as an Advocate, which is a mandatory requirement as per Clause 14.4 of the Litigation Policy- 2018, for appointment of an advocate as Additional Advocate General.

(3.) For ready reference, prayer made in the writ petition is being reproduced hereunder:-