It is a matter of immense significance to note that the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Sri Pratap Singh vs Jaipur Development Authority & Ors in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18266/2025 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6626/2021 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:RJ-JP:12194 that was reserved on March 5, 2026 and then finally pronounced on March 25, 2026 has held that lawyers engaged by State authorities cannot be treated as expendable or subjected to arbitrary termination, while quashing the cancellation of engagement of Assistant Advocates by the Jaipur Development Authority. It must be mentioned here that the Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging orders that had been issued by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) cancelling the engagement of Assistant Advocates who had been appointed to coordinate legal work between officers and panel counsel. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ganesh Ram Meena minced absolutely just no words to hold most unequivocally that, “… 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 writ petitions were thus allowed and the impugned orders cancelling the engagement of the petitioners as Assistant Advocates were quashed. The Court directed the Jaipur Development Authority to continue the petitioners in their roles on existing terms, conditions and remuneration.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ganesh Ram Meena of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Since a common question is involved in all these writ petitions, hence, they are being decided by this common order.”
As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 2 disclosing that, “The dispute which has been brought before this Court by filing all these writ petitions is with regard to removal of Assistant Advocates appointed/engaged by the respondent-Jaipur Development Authority (for short ‘the JDA’) so as to coordinate in between the office of the JDA and the Panel Counsels of the JDA, to submit the reply on behalf of the JDA well in time. The engagement of the Assistant Advocates has been made because of the scarcity of Law Officers in the JDA.”
As things stands, the Bench observes in para 3 that, “Instead of recording the facts of each and every case, for consideration of the dispute, the Court deems proper to record the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18266/2025.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 7 while elaborating on the facts of the case stating that, “The petitioner- Pratap Singh was engaged as an Assistant Advocate vide order dated 21.12.2009 on consideration of his application submitted in furtherance of the order dated 11.09.2009. Though in the order of engagement/appointment dated 11.09.2009, no specific period for which he has been engaged is mentioned. However, the petitioner-Pratap Singh continued for a long and his engagement was cancelled vide order dated 14.11.2025 and by the same order other petitioners who were engaged as Assistant Advocates by the JDA, their engagement was also cancelled. The petitioner by filing the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 14.11.2025 to the extent of cancellation of his engagement as an Assistant Advocate and similarly in other petitions the petitioners therein have challenged the cancellation of their engagements.”
Needless to say, the Bench states in para 16 that, “It is settled principle of law that the Welfare State and its instrumentalities/undertakings are required to act in a bonafide manner and shall not adhere to any arbitrary exercise of powers and are to avoid arbitrariness in their action and decisions.”
While citing the relevant case law, the Bench observes in para 30 that, “The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R. Muthukrishnan v. The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, in Writ Petition (C) No.612 of 2012, decided on January 28, 2019 has observed that the nobility of the legal system is to be ensured at all costs so that the Constitution remains vibrant and to expand its interpretation so as to meet new challenges. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case has observed in paras 14, 22 and 23 as under:-
“14. The legal profession cannot be equated with any other traditional professions. It is not commercial in nature and is a noble one considering the nature of duties to be performed and its impact on the society. The independence of the Bar and autonomy of the Bar Council has been ensured statutorily in order to preserve the very democracy itself and to ensure that judiciary remains strong. Where the Bar has not performed the duty independently and has become a sycophant that ultimately results in the denigrating of the judicial system and judiciary itself. There cannot be existence of a strong judicial system without an independent Bar.
…
22. The Bar is the mother of the judiciary and consists of great jurists. The Bar has produced great Judges, they have adorned the judiciary and rendered the real justice, which is essential for the society.
23. The role of a lawyer is indispensable in the system of delivery of justice. He is bound by the professional ethics and to maintain the high standard. His duty is to the court, to his own client, to the opposite side, and to maintain the respect of opposite party counsel also. What may be proper to others in the society, may be improper for him to do as he belongs to a respected intellectual class of the society and a member of the noble profession, the expectation from him is higher. Advocates are treated with respect in society. People repose immense faith in the judiciary and judicial system and the first person who deals with them is a lawyer. Litigants repose faith in a lawyer and share with them privileged information. They put their signatures wherever asked by a lawyer. An advocate is supposed to protect their rights and to ensure that untainted justice is delivered to his cause.””
Most significantly and as a corollary, the Bench encapsulates in para 31 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as quoted above, this Court is of the opinion 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 respondents-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.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 32 that, “In the present case, the respondents neglected the terms and conditions incorporated by them in the orders issued by them and therefore the act of disengagement or cancellation of the engagement of the petitioners from being Assistant Advocates, is held to be an arbitrary act of the respondents and that deserves to be quashed and set aside.”
Resultantly, the Bench then directs and holds in para 33 that, “Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The orders of cancellation of engagement of the petitioners as Assistant Advocates are quashed and set aside. The respondent- JDA is directed to continue the petitioners as Assistant Advocates on the terms and conditions and remuneration as applicable in present.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 34 noting that, “Looking to the controversy and the dispute agitated before this Court, this Court would also like to direct the respondent- JDA as under:-
(i) The respondents shall frame a comprehensive policy/guidelines/instructions as regards the eligibility, tenure and procedure regarding engagement and removal/disengagement for Assistant Advocates;
(ii) The petitioners whose writ petitions are allowed by this order shall be allowed to continue as Assistant Advocates till their work is found to be qualitative and satisfactory or any such policy/guidelines/instructions are framed as directed in above para (i), and fresh engagements are made as per such policy; and
(iii) The respondents shall also incorporate provision in the policy/guidelines/instructions so that while engaging the Assistant Advocates and also panel Advocates, the representation of women lawyers and lawyers from scheduled caste/tribe, backward classes and weaker sections of the society can be ensured as remuneration is being paid from public exchequer and the JDA is an instrumentality of the Government of Rajasthan.”
Adding more to it, the Bench then further directs and holds in para 35 that, “In view of the order passed in the main petitions, the stay applications and pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 36 that, “The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in other connected petitions.”
In sum, we thus see that the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court has made it indubitably clear that lawyers can’t be treated as servants. To put it differently, the Bench was of the unequivocal view that the dignity of the legal profession cannot be compromised by arbitrary State action and that the engagement or disengagement of advocates must always adhere to reasonable terms, conditions and procedure. It was also made crystal clear that engagements can’t be terminated arbitrarily. Very rightly so!
Sanjeev Sirohi