have adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Senior
Advocates.
11. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, counsel appearing for the
JDA submitted that the petitioners have not been engaged as
employees by the JDA and they have been engaged as
Assistant Advocates on contractual basis for performing the
work of temporary nature and therefore, the writ petitions
filed by the petitioners are not maintainable. He has made a
reference of the additional affidavit submitted by the JDA
stating that there are 58 vacancies of the Assistant
Advocates. He further submitted that there is no vested
rights of the petitioners to continue as Assistant Advocates
and they cannot claim their continuation. He made a
reference of Clause 3 of the order dated 18.05.2022
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 02:59:43 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12194] (13 of 48) [CW-18266/2025]
(Annex.5). The said clause provides that the person who has
been engaged as an Assistant Advocate cannot claim to
continue in service and has also referred Clause 12 of the
said order submitting that a person engaged as an Assistant
Advocate can be removed.
