THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

WRIT PETITION No.24862 of 2025

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare Rule 5 (column

No. 3) of the Telangana State Prosecution Rules, 1992 issued by respondent No.2 insofar as the condition requiring a minimum of three years active practice in criminal Courts for recruitment as Assistant Public Prosecutor, as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India and to set

aside the same.

2. Heard Sri B. Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. Krishna, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.1, Sri C.Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Level Police

Recruitment Board (TSLPRC) and perused the record.

3. The petitioner, an Advocate, enrolled on 26.08.2023 contends that he is deprived of an opportunity to apply for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor inasmuch as he lacks the requisite three years standing at the Bar as mandated in the

impugned notification.

4. The main grounds urged by the petitioner are:-

i) that the classification between Advocates with less than three years into one category and Advocates with three or more years practice into another category, is not based on any intelligible criteria and is therefore unjust and bears no rational nexus with the object of the rule of appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors.

ii) the mere enrolment of three years does not guarantee additional competence for being appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor, which makes the rule illusory, and in any event the persons selected for appointment would be provided to training. iii) Section 19 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) does not prescribe such a mandatory requirement of three years for Assistant Public Prosecutors as specified in Section 18 for the appointment of Public Prosecutors and the said condition in the notification which is in the nature of subordinate Rules is ultra vires.

iv) that the office of the Assistant Public Prosecutor is an independent office and not that of a Government servant, in the strict sense. Therefore, the Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the rule making power contained therein cannot be made applicable for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Home representing the State supported the notification issued by respondent No.2 and contended that:

i) the requirement of three years practice is a well reasoned stipulation and exists in many states and is intended to ensure that the Assistant Public Prosecutors, who conduct criminal prosecutions on behalf of the State, possess atleast a minimum level of practical familiarity with the Court procedure;

ii) the functions of the Assistant Public Prosecutor are not merely academic but involve handling criminal cases, examining and cross-examining witnesses and advancing arguments in accordance with law, which are all tasks for which practical experience at the bar is indispensable, iii) the classification of Advocates into two classes, namely, Advocates with less than three years of active practice and Advocates with more than three years of active practice is rational and has a direct nexus with the purpose of appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors with some practical experience, whose appointment is governed by the Service Rules framed by the respective State Governments, iv) the Assistant Public Prosecutors have been held to be employees of the State holding civil posts by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Johri Mal1 v) the mandatory condition of three years of active practice does not override Section 19 of the BNSS, rather it supplements Section 19 of the BNSS, by prescribing service conditions pursuant to the Rule making power vested under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

6. On the basis of rival submissions, t