Recently, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the removal of Assistant Advocates engaged by the Jaipur Development Authority, holding that such disengagement was arbitrary and contrary to the governing terms of engagement. The Court made a sharp observation that lawyers cannot be treated like servants and their engagement or removal must follow fair, reasoned procedures.
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from a batch of writ petitions challenging the cancellation of the engagement of several Assistant Advocates by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA). These advocates had been engaged under specific office orders that laid down their eligibility, scope of work, and conditions governing their removal. Notably, the governing framework provided that disengagement could take place only if their performance was found unsatisfactory, ordinarily based on an assessment by the competent authority. The petitioners had been discharging their duties for a considerable period without any fixed tenure, and their performance had been officially recorded as satisfactory. Despite this, their engagements were abruptly terminated, allegedly under external directions and without any recorded deficiency in their work. Aggrieved by what they termed an arbitrary exercise of power, the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the legality of the impugned action.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioners argued that the impugned orders were arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, and contrary to the express terms governing engagement. The Counsel emphasized that the only permissible ground for removal under the governing orders was unsatisfactory performance, which was demonstrably absent, as official records certified their work as satisfactory. The Petitioners further contended that the termination was carried out under external influence, without any objective assessment, and argued that even contractual engagements by the State must satisfy Article 14 of the Constitution standards of non-arbitrariness.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The JDA contended that the petitioners were engaged on a contractual and temporary basis, with no vested right to continue. The Counsel argued that the authority retains discretion to engage or disengage advocates based on its requirements and confidence, and such decisions are not amenable to judicial interference. The Respondents also invoked contractual clauses permitting removal and argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable against such engagements, which were not in the nature of public employment.
Observation of the Court:
Justice Ganesh Ram Meena observed that “the lawyers have some dignity and they cannot be treated like a servant. Their engagement or disengagement has to be as per the reasonable terms and conditions. The dignity of a lawyer cannot be put to compromise. The respondent authorities cannot be allowed to engage or disengage a lawyer for a legal work at their whims. The engagement or disengagement has to be in accordance with some procedure and terms and conditions.”
The Court observed that State authorities, being instrumentalities of a welfare State, are under a constitutional obligation to act fairly and cannot exercise their powers in an arbitrary manner, especially when their own prescribed terms and conditions regulate such actions. The Court held that the disengagement of Assistant Advocates, despite their work being certified as satisfactory, and in the absence of any material indicating unsatisfactory performance, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of the governing conditions of engagement. It emphasised that an authority cannot ignore the very conditions it has framed while taking adverse action.
The Bench noted that when the terms of engagement clearly restrict removal only to cases of unsatisfactory performance, any disengagement beyond such grounds, without justification, amounts to misuse of power and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. The Court further observed that the absence of any fixed tenure does not grant unfettered discretion to terminate engagements at will, and such power must still conform to principles of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.
The Court held that the action of removing experienced advocates without assigning any valid reason, particularly when their performance was found satisfactory, reflects a non-transparent and arbitrary exercise of authority.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court allowed the batch of writ petitions and quashed the impugned orders cancelling the engagement of the Assistant Advocates.
Case Title: Pratap Singh Vs. The Jaipur Development Authority and Ors
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18266/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ganesh Ram Meena
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Adv. R.N. Mathur, Adv. Ranvijay Singh, Adv. Ankit Yadav, Adv. Ashish Sharma, Adv. Yogesh Kalla, Adv. Dinesh Yadav, Adv. Sahil Sharma, Adv. Ravi Shanker Sharma, Adv. Pawan Sharma, Adv. Pawan Sharma
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Abhishek Sharma, Adv. Ajay Shukla, Adv. Pooja Sharma, Adv. Rishabh Khandelwal, Adv. Raghav Sharma
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
