Ashutosh Kumar, J.—We have heard Sri Dinu Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Nadim Seraj, G.P.-5 for the State.

2. Though nobody appears today for Union of India but affidavit on its behalf has been filed, which supports the case of the petitioner.

3. The issue pertains to interpretation of Section 25(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which was incorporated in the Code in the year 2006 by Amendment Act 25 of 2005.

4. It provides that (1) the State Government may establish a Directorate of Prosecution consisting of a Director of Prosecution and many Deputy Directors of Prosecution as it thinks fit. (2) A person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Director of Prosecution or a Deputy Director of Prosecution only if he has been in practice as an Advocate for not less than ten years and such appointment shall be made with the concurrence of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court.

5. After about ten years of the incorporation of the aforenoted provision in the Code, the State of Bihar, in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and Section 25(A) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 proposed for amendment in Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003 (hereinafter called ‘Manual’) which was assented by the Governor of Bihar.

6. The amendments proposed and carried out were in Rule 5 of the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003 which provision has been substituted by new Rule 5.

7. According to the amendment, the minimum age and experience qualification has been prescribed as ten years in Bihar Prosecution Service.

Mr. Kumar submits that the aforenoted amendment in Manual is repugnant to the provisions contained in Section 25(A) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and therefore, the same is required to be struck down as invalid.

8. It has been adumbrated by Mr. Kumar that Section 25A of the Code, being a Central Legislation, prescribing a minimum eligibility requirement for appointment as Director or Deputy Director of Prosecution as ten years of experience as an Advocate cannot be diluted in any manner by any state legislation.

9. The amendments carried out in the Manual in Rule 5 provides for a totally different eligibility and experience criterion, which is way higher than what has been prescribed in the Central legislation (Cr.P.C.) in Section 25(A).

10. With the aforenoted amendment in Manual, the avenue for joining such service is limited to only such persons who have served and have gained experience in the prosecution service of the State of Bihar.

11. It is therefore submitted that to that extent i.e. the prescription of qualification in the State Legislation, brought out under the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution is bad as it does not pass the muster of constitutionality of a State Legislation in the same field in which the Central Legislation operates.

12. Mr. Kumar has also referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court in S. Thamizharasan vs. the State of Tamil Nadu (decided on 26.11.2009) by a Division Bench, which prohibits any change in the eligibility requirement pre-fixed/prescribed in the Central Legislation.

13. Thus, the sum and substance of the argument of the writ petitioner is that the State, in its rule making authority, was incompetent to modify or vary the prescription of age and experience as provided under Section 25(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

14. He laments that pursuant to the aforenoted amendment and the direction of a Single Judge of this Court in a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being CWJC No. 13177 of 2009, the appointment process was initiated and Advertisement No. 33 of 2017 was issued against which the process of recruitment began.

15. He further submits that even if the appointment process, pursuant to the changed rule in the Manual has been concluded, that ought to be declared a nullity in the eyes of law as the prescription of age and experience in the Manual was beyond the competen