Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Appointment Of Padmesh Mishra As AAG For State In SC

The Rajasthan High Court has recently issued notice to the government of Rajasthan on a petition filed by an advocate, challenging the appointment of Padmesh Mishra as Additional Advocate General (“AAG”) for the state of Rajasthan at the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman heard the plea.

Padmesh Mishra is the son of Justice PK Mishra, Judge of the Supreme Court.

The facts relating to the present controversy entail that Padmesh Mishra was appointed as AAG despite not meeting the requisite experience to be eligible for the post in accordance with the State Litigation Policy 2018.

Section 14 of the said Policy which provides for 'Appointment of Counsel for the State' requires a minimum experience of five years of practice for appointment as a Panel lawyer at the Supreme Court and ten years for the appointment as AAG. 

Interestingly, Padmesh Mishra, as per his enrolment number has five years of practice. However, it is alleged that the Law Department by means of a notification introduced a new sub-section 14.8 in the Policy which provided that 'notwithstanding anything contained in the Policy, the authority of the appropriate level shall have power to appoint any counsel to any post after considering his expertise in the respective field.'

Pertinently, Padmesh Mishra was initially appointed as a Panel Lawyer at the Supreme Court by a notification dated August 20. However, just three days later, the same was withdrawn and notifications dated August 23 were issued for change in policy and his subsequent appointment as AAG. 

While praying for an immediate stay on Padmesh Mishra officiating as the AAG and on the notification effecting the change in policy, the petitioner termed the act of the government of Rajasthan of vesting unbridled and unrestricted powers in the appropriate authority as contrary to law and manifestly arbitrary. 

It has been argued that the mandate of minimum ten years of practice for appointment as AAG cannot be diluted by incorporating clause 14.8 in the policy and moreover, the astounding pace with which the notifications were issued and re-issued shows that exercise was undertaken to bestow benevolence upon Padmesh Mishra and thereby his appointment is grossly illegal and per se arbitrary.