You're on LegallyIndia, so I assume you know what Google is? You went to the effort of creating this thread, but you couldn't figure out how to use the internet for a simple question like this? I'm sorry, I really don't want to be rude – but I hope you're just a first year student or someone who is yet to finish school. Research is a very important part of being a lawyer.
1.2 doesn't care about that. 1.2 just wants you to know that they are superior to you for having mastered the art of searching things on Google (though they are yet to fully comprehend the purpose and functioning of message boards - where people ask questions and others answer them).
The answer is right there (and it's pretty obvious if you have any idea about how India is organised) – Delhi is a Union Territory and there is no provision to appoint an Advocate General. This is because – this might be shocking to you – Delhi is not a 'state'.
The UT of J&K has an AG because there is a specific provision for it: Section 79 of the J&K Reorganisation Act (worded similar to Article 165 of the Constitution), empowered the Lieutenant Governor (the counterpart of a Governor in a Union Territory) to appoint an AG for the Union Territory.
As for the answer, you can read more at: https://thebasicstructureconlaw.wordpress.com/2020/04/03/the-curious-case-of-delhi-and-the-position-of-the-advocate-general/amp/
This was literally the second result on Google. Please at least try to be curious.
The answer is right there (and it's pretty obvious if you have any idea about how India is organised) – Delhi is a Union Territory and there is no provision to appoint an Advocate General. This is because – this might be shocking to you – Delhi is not a 'state'.
The UT of J&K has an AG because there is a specific provision for it: Section 79 of the J&K Reorganisation Act (worded similar to Article 165 of the Constitution), empowered the Lieutenant Governor (the counterpart of a Governor in a Union Territory) to appoint an AG for the Union Territory.
My god, man.