The case of Dr. Chandra Bhan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan was adjudicated by the Rajasthan High Court on January 12, 1983. Dr. Chandra Bhan Singh filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Shri Nathu Lal Jain as the Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner contended that the appointment violated Articles 165 and 319(d) of the Constitution of India. This commentary explores the background of the case, the legal issues involved, and the court's reasoning in dismissing the petition.

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed Dr. Chandra Bhan Singh’s writ petition, ruling that the appointment of Shri Nathu Lal Jain as Advocate General was legal and did not violate constitutional provisions. The court examined the applicability of Article 319(d), which restricts employment post-cessation from certain public offices, and the qualification criteria under Article 165 for the Advocate General. The court determined that the Advocate General does not fall under the category of a government servant as contemplated by Article 319(d) and that the age provision under Article 217 regarding High Court Judges does not impede his appointment as Advocate General.

Precedents Cited

The petitioner relied on several landmark cases to support his contention:

• Shivnandan v. Punjab National Bank, AIR 1955 SC 404
• Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1957 SC 264
• Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P., AIR 1958 SC 388

These cases were primarily used to argue the applicability of Article 319(d)'s employment restrictions to the appointment of the Advocate General. However, the Rajasthan High Court distinguished the role of the Advocate General from that of a typical government servant, thereby limiting the applicability of these precedents to the case at hand.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered around two main constitutional provisions:

• Article 165: Pertains to the appointment and qualifications of the Advocate General.
• Article 319(d): Imposes restrictions on employment after ceasing to hold certain public offices.

The court reasoned that the Advocate General operates independently, without the subordination inherent in typical government employment. As such, the Advocate General maintains a client-counsel relationship with the state rather than that of employer-employee. This distinction meant that the restrictions under Article 319(d) did not apply. Furthermore, regarding the qualification under Article 165, the court clarified that the age limit specified in Article 217 for High Court Judges does not extend to the role of Advocate General, which has different qualifications and tenure provisions.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for the appointment and status of Advocate Generals across India:

• Clarification of Status: Establishes that the Advocate General is not considered a government servant in the traditional sense, exempting the role from certain employment restrictions.
• Appointment Flexibility: Affirms that age-related restrictions for High Court Judges do not impede the appointment of Advocate Generals, allowing experienced legal professionals to serve beyond their judicial tenure.
• Independent Function: Reinforces the independence of the Advocate General's office, ensuring that legal advisors to the state can operate without undue government control.

Future appointments of Advocate Generals can thus proceed without the constraints initially posited by Article 319(d), provided that constitutional qualifications specific to the Advocate General are met.

Article 165 of the Constitution

Article 165 outlines the appointment and duties of the Advocate General in India. It specifies that the Advocate General is appointed by the Governor of the state and must be qualified for appointment as a judge of a High Court. However, this case clarifies that exceeding the judicial retirement age does not disqualify someone from being appointed Advocate General.

Article 319(d) of the Constitution

This clause restricts individuals who have served on Public Service Commissions from taking up other governmental roles, ensuring separation of certain public offices. The court determined that this restriction does not apply to the Advocate General, as the role does not constitute typical government employment.

Advocate General vs. Government Servant

The Advocate General is a legal advisor to the state, functioning independently rather than as a subordinate employee. This distinction is crucial in determining the applicability of employment restrictions and underscores the role's autonomy in discharging legal duties.

The Rajasthan High Court's decision in Dr. Chandra Bhan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan serves as a pivotal interpretation of constitutional provisions concerning the status and appointment of the Advocate General. By delineating the Advocate General's role as distinct from that of a government servant, the court upheld the legality of Shri Nathu Lal Jain's appointment despite his previous position in the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and his age. This judgment not only resolves the immediate dispute but also sets a clear precedent for the independence and qualifications required for future Advocate General appointments, thereby reinforcing the autonomy of legal advisors in the state's governance structure.