'Lawyers Can't Be Treated Like Servants': Rajasthan High Court Quashes JDA's Orders Removing Advocates For Violating Terms & Conditions

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that lawyers have dignity which cannot be compromised and they cannot be treated like servants, wherein there engagement or disengagement has to be as per the reasonable terms and conditions

In doing so the court set aside various orders passed by the Jaipur Development Authority removing assistant advocates engaged by it, observing that the authority had neglected the terms and conditions incorporated by them.

The court was hearing a batch of petitions over removal of Assistant Advocates appointed/engaged by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) 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 was stated to have been made because of the scarcity of Law Officers in the authority.

Referring to various judgments on engagement of lawyers, Justice Ganesh Ram Meena in his order observed:

"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 respondent sauthorities 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.

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".

The court further said that while State has an authority to engage the lawyers of its own choice and confidence, however, any action for engagement or their removal should be reasonable and not arbitrary.

It said that when the terms and conditions of engagements of Assistant Advocates like the petitioners before the court, provided for their removal only on count of work performance then the authority could not have disengaged or cancel their engagements "at their whims".

It further directed:

1. JDA to frame comprehensive policy/ guidelines / instructions as regards the eligibility, tenure and procedure regarding engagement and removal / disengagement for Assistant Advocates

2. Petitioners whose petitions are allowed by the court 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 para (1), and fresh engagements are made as per such policy

3. JDA shall 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.

As per the petitioners, JDA issued an office order dated 11.09.2009 to engage the Assistant Advocates in the JDA to coordinate amongst the Officers-incharge and the Panel Counsels of the JDA. The order dated 11.09.2009 contains the work to be performed by the Assistant Advocates and the eligibility for engagement. The order also contained that in case the work performance of the Assistant Advocates is not found to be satisfactory, they can be removed without any notice.

Another order dated 22.05.2014 was issued by the JDA superseding the earlier orders wherein it had incorporated a condition that if the work performance of the Assistant Advocates is not found to be satisfactory, they can be removed on the report of the Zone Commissioner. Thereafter one more order dated 18.05.2022 was issued incorporating similar provisions as earlier.

One of the petitioner's 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 was mentioned; however, the petitioner 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 court remarked that it was a 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.

Referring to the terms and conditions incorporated in JDA's orders, the court that no fixed term of their engagements has been provided and the Assistant Advocates, being engaged by the JDA can continue till removal and are being continued for a long time. As per the terms and conditions of the said orders, an Assistant Advocate can only be removed or his engagement can be cancelled if his work performance is not found to be satisfactory, the court noted.

Perusing the orders the court thereafter said:

"In the orders issued by the respondent- Authority it has been provided that the Assistant Advocates who are being engaged by the JDA after considering their all credentials and eligibility criteria, they can be removed only in case their work performance is not found to be satisfactory. It has come out that the work performance of the petitioners has been certified to be qualitative and satisfactory by the respondent- Authority and still under the directions of the Hon'ble Minister, their engagements have been cancelled for no good reason. The respondents have failed to convince this Court that as to why the lawyers who have gained much experience as Assistant Advocates are being thrown out for no good reason.

The respondents may have provided a tenure for engagement of Assistant Advocates while engaging and on completion of such tenure their engagements would have automatically come to an end but no tenure of their engagement has been provided. Therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to adhere to the terms and conditions as incorporated in the orders of engagements. From the aforesaid discussion and also on scrutiny of the material placed before this Court, the Court can safely held that the act of the respondents in removal / cancellation of the engagements of the petitioners is arbitrary act of the respondents".

Allowing the petitions, the court quashed JDA's orders cancelling engagement of the petitioners.

Case title: Pratap Singh v/s The Jaipur Development Authority And batch

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18266/2025 and connected petitions

Click Here To Read/Download Order