In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has upheld the Jaipur Development Authority’s (JDA) decision to terminate several Assistant Advocates, rejecting a batch of writ petitions that challenged their removal. The Court examined whether such contractual engagements could be ended without notice.
Background of the Case
The petitions were led by Pratap Singh vs Jaipur Development Authority & Ors., along with multiple connected matters. The petitioners were engaged as Assistant Advocates by the JDA to coordinate between its office and panel lawyers due to a shortage of law officers.
Their engagement stemmed from policy orders issued by the JDA in 2009, later modified in 2014 and 2022. These orders clearly stated that Assistant Advocates could be removed if their performance was found unsatisfactory.
However, in November 2025, the JDA issued a common order terminating the services of several such advocates. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court, alleging arbitrariness and violation of natural justice.
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the termination orders were illegal and lacked justification.
It was contended that:
- The removal was not based on poor performance.
- Internal records showed their work was “qualitative and satisfactory.”
- The action was allegedly influenced by directions from higher authorities without valid reasons.
“The order of cancellation is arbitrary and violates principles of natural justice,” the petitioners’ counsel submitted during the hearing.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Examines ECI’s Power to Transfer Top Officials Ahead of Polls
They also relied on Supreme Court judgments to argue that even contractual engagements by the State must meet standards of fairness and reasonableness.
The JDA, on the other hand, defended its decision, stating that Assistant Advocates were not regular employees but were engaged on a contractual and temporary basis.
The authority argued:
- The petitioners had no vested right to continue.
- The terms of engagement clearly allowed termination.
- The JDA cannot be compelled to retain specific individuals.
“The engagement is purely temporary, and continuation cannot be claimed as a matter of right,” the counsel for JDA submitted.
Justice Ganesh Ram Meena noted that all petitions involved a common issue regarding the termination of Assistant Advocates and were therefore decided together.
The Court examined the terms of engagement and found that:
- The policy explicitly allowed removal based on performance.
- The engagement was not permanent in nature.
- The relationship was contractual, not statutory employment.
The bench observed that the petitioners could not claim continuation merely because they had served for a long period.
The Rajasthan High Court ultimately dismissed the batch of writ petitions, holding that the JDA was within its rights to terminate the engagement of Assistant Advocates as per the governing terms and conditions.
Case Details
Case Title: Pratap Singh vs Jaipur Development Authority & Ors.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18266/2025 & connected matters
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ganesh Ram Meena
Decision Date: March 25, 2026
Counsels:
- Petitioners: Sr. Adv. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Adv. R.N. Mathur & others
- Respondents: Abhishek Sharma, Rishabh Khandelwal & others
