The Rajasthan High Court has closed a suo motu criminal writ petition concerning the non-appointment of Advocate Brahmanand Sandu as Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General. The court made it clear that the issue did not amount to contempt or a criminal matter and was essentially a service-related dispute.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anand Sharma passed the order on April 2, 2025. The case had originated from a letter dated April 16, 2024, where the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court conveyed the court's consent for Sandu’s appointment to the Principal Secretary of the Law and Legal Affairs Department.

Read also: SC Issues Notice On Contempt Plea Over Alleged Illegal Demolition By Rajasthan Authorities; Orders Status Quo

However, the appointment was never formally issued by the State Government. A single judge took suo motu cognizance and directed that the matter be treated as a criminal writ petition. The judge also ordered the Principal Secretary to appear in person with the original appointment records.

The Division Bench later clarified:

"Merely because the matter relates to appointment of a Government Advocate after consultation with the High Court, as required under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. (as it then existed), it cannot be treated as a criminal matter. This is essentially a service issue."

Read also: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Rejection of Plea to Submit Sale Deed After 13 Years in Ongoing Land Dispute

It also stressed:

"Non-issuance of any appointment order after consultation with the High Court, as provided under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C., does not amount to contempt."

Counsels representing the State and the High Court argued that the issue was administrative in nature. The High Court had only given its consent under the consultative process, and the final decision still rested with the Government.

Brahmanand Sandu, who was also present, stated that he was aware of the recommendation but was never informed why the appointment had not gone through.

Read also: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Widow Denied RAS Post Over Pending Criminal Case from Matrimonial Dispute

In conclusion, the bench stated:

"If the concerned person in whose case consultative process has been adopted and even thereafter, he has not been appointed, it is only an individual grievance. Such person, if so advised, may approach the Court by filing appropriate petition."

The court closed the suo motu case, affirming that Sandu is free to seek legal remedy under the law.

Case Title: Suo Moto v the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan & Ors.