Plea in Rajasthan High Court challenges appointment of advocate Padmesh Mishra as AAG

The Rajasthan High Court on Saturday sought State's response on a petition challenging the appointment of advocate Padmesh Mishra as an Additional Advocate General (AAG) for the government before Supreme Court..The petition moved by Jaipur-based advocate Sunil Samdaria was listed for hearing before Justice Anil Kumar Upman who said the matter requires consideration."Issue notice of writ petition as well as stay application to the respondents through both the process, returnable on the next date of hearing," ordered the Court, while listing the case after four weeks.Mishra was appointed as the AAG on August 23 and is son of a sitting Supreme Court judge. It has been argued in the plea that Mishra's appointment as the AAG was "grossly illegal and invalid in eye of law" as he did not have the requisite 'minimum experience of practice for 10 years’ as required under the Clause 14.4 of the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018.Mishra has only about 5 years of experience in legal profession since he was enrolled only in 2019, the plea alleged..The plea also stated that Mishra had earlier been appointed as a Panel Lawyer by the government but just three days later he was appointed as AAG."The lightening speed with which entire exercise of withdrawal of his appointment as Panel Lawyer, incorporation of Clause 14.8 in the Litigation Policy of 2018 and his appointment as an Additional Advocate General was done, clearly demonstrates that entire exercise was done to bestow benevolence upon the Respondent No.2, which makes the appointment of Respondent No.2 grossly illegal, invalid and per se arbitrary," argues the plea..The petition also challenges the Clause 14.8 of Litigation Policy of 2018 and alleges that the same was incorporated at the eleventh hour to facilitate Mishra's appointment."Clause 14.8 of the Litigation Policy, notwithstanding anything contained in the Litigation Policy, gave an unbridled, untrammelled, unrestricted power to the appropriate authority to appoint any counsel to any post on the specious premise of expertise in respective field, without laying down any objective criteria of expertise, thereby making the Clause 14.8 manifestly arbitrary, illegal and invalid in eye of law thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India," the plea states.It adds that 10 years of experience at Bar is minimum for appointment of AAG, as prescribed by Clause 14.4 of the Litigation Policy, 2018 "which cannot be compromised or sacrificed under any pretext or any flimsy incorporation of Clause like 14.8.".Samdaria in the plea has also contended that when AAGs appointed for the High Court have more than 10 years of practice to their credit, an AAG with a lesser experience cannot be appointed for the Supreme Court."There was no justification for the Government of Rajasthan to have appointed Respondent No.2 as an Additional Advocate General before Honourable Supreme Court of India, when he had not completed 10 years of practice, rather had put in only 5 years of practice. Thus, the impugned appointment of Respondent No.2 as an Additional Advocate General is patently illegal and invalid," the plea states.[Read Order]