AR.LAKSHMANAN, J. - (1.) The petitioners in the instant writ petition are the practising advocates at Jodhpur. They filed the writ petition with the following prayers :- It is, therefore, prayed that a writ, direction or order or in the nature of mandamus be issued and respondents be directed to advertise the post and appointments of Advocate General, Additional Advocate General, Government Advocates, Panel Lawyers etc. to deal with cases of State of Rajasthan in High Court and various other Courts in Rajasthan and selections be made. That all persons holding these posts at present be held ab initio void.
(2.) According to the writ petitioners, the appointments to the post of Advocate General, Government Advocates, Public Prosecutors and Panel Lawyers are made in a very arbitrary manner simply on likes and dislikes theory and that few lawyers got monopoly in representing the State. According to the petitioners, India being a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic, there must be equal distribution of work and equal opportunity to seek work and compete. It is also their case that at present there is no policy guidelines for distributing the work of State litigation and to provide the State with the legal opinion and that the present policy of the Government of appointments of Advocate General, Government Advocates and Public Prosecutors etc. is wholly illegal and void since these appointments are made on the recommendation of various political workers, office-bearers and on the desire of Chief Minister, Law Minister and local M.L.As. etc. which is totally illegal. According to the petitioners that every post/appointment right from the President of India to Constable is public property and every eligible has right to apply and seek these posts and the only method is to advertise the post and appointments be made after due selection based on uniform rules and if these posts are not advertised and eligible persons are not allowed to apply, it is stated that the petitioners will be deprived of their right to apply and seek these posts.
(3.) The writ petition was resisted by the respondent No. 1, the State of Rajasthan by filing a reply. The following are the contentions raised and submissions made on behalf of the respondent No. 1, State of Rajasthan. (a)The post of Advocate General and Additional Advocate General are concerned, these are constitutional posts and appointments are made in accordance with the provisions contained in the Constitution of India. (b)So far as the posts of Government Advocates and Public Prosecutors are concerned, these posts are filled up in accordance with the Rajasthan Law and Legal Affairs Department Manual, 1999 read with Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (c)The petitioners have not stated a single example of arbitrariness in the appointments and mere levelling of an allegation is not sufficient. (d)It is for the State to select its own advocates to conduct the cases on behalf of the State in the High Court and the Courts subordinate to it and change of Ministry and Political party has nothing to do in the matter because it is the State Government who makes appointments/termination etc. (e)In the matter of engaging lawyers by the State Government, it is always open to it to engage the advocates of its choice and confidence. (f)The Constitution of India nowhere provides that there must be equal distribution of works and equal opportunity to seek work and compete, for the persons like the petitioners i.e. advocates. (g)So far as the appointments of Government Advocates and Public Prosecutors are concerned, the same are made under the Judicial Manual after following the procedure prescribed thereunder and also under S. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it is wholly wrong to state that there is no policy for appointment of Advocate General, Government Advocates and Public Prosecutors in the High Court and the trial Courts. (h)There is no requirement of law to advertise the posts in question because they are not the posts falling within the definition Government Service" nor under the Judicial Manual nor under the Constitution. Hence, there is no provision for advertising these posts.;