https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175895 Article 165 contemplates a single Advocate General for each State, because the constitutional office is framed in singular terms and is meant to be held by one qualified person. General interpretive rules under Article 367 and the General Clauses Act do not override that context. However, the State may still use its executive power under Article 162 to engage legal practitioners as Additional Advocate Generals, provided they are not treated as holders of the constitutional office or as persons empowered to discharge its constitutional or statutory functions. The State therefore cannot multiply the office of Advocate General, but it may make non-constitutional legal appointments for assistance. en-us Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Dec 2015 21:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175895 Article 165 contemplates a single Advocate General for each State, because the constitutional office is framed in singular terms and is meant to be held by one qualified person. General interpretive rules under Article 367 and the General Clauses Act do not override that context. However, the State may still use its executive power under Article 162 to engage legal practitioners as Additional Advocate Generals, provided they are not treated as holders of the constitutional office or as persons empowered to discharge its constitutional or statutory functions. The State therefore cannot multiply the office of Advocate General, but it may make non-constitutional legal appointments for assistance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175895