Supreme Court dismisses challenge to experience criterion for Assistant Public Prosecutor appointment in Telangana

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea challenging the eligibility criteria of three-years experience as a lawyer for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in Telangana (K Rajender v State of Telengana)..A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna dismissed the petition, filed by a Police Constable (Civil) with 18-years experience at the Telangana Regional Police Department, challenging a notification issued by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board for the recruitment of 151 Assistant Public Prosecutors in 2021. The petitioner had claimed that the said notification was violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21. The notification prescribed a minimum educational qualification of a Bachelor’s degree in any subject along with a Bachelor's degree in law, apart from mandatory legal practice as an advocate for not less than 3 years in criminal courts, for appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor.The petitioner's case was that he has all the requisite qualifications and necessary experience in criminal courts except for practicing as an advocate, which places him at a disadvantage, compared to other candidates who have possibly lesser practical experience.This prompted him to approach the top court..It was submitted that the petitioner has been employed as a constable since 2002, and has 18 years of daily experience while appearing in criminal courts, and is well versed with the regular proceedings of the Court and has practical and hands-on experience in criminal law. The primary contention of the petitioner was that when the eligibility criteria for the post of a Civil Judge does not mandate any prior practice as an advocate, it is wholly arbitrary, erroneous, and unfair to place a condition of prior experience for the post of an Assistant Public Prosecutor."The substantial question of law for the kind consideration of this Hon’ble Court is whether the mandatory requirement of three years of practice as an Advocate takes precedence over almost two decades of regular and ardent practice of Court procedures and knowledge of Criminal Law," the plea said.The petitioner relied on the judgement in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, in which the apex court directed the deletion of three years of mandatory practice as an advocate. Additionally, in Karthika Koneti v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court allowed the candidates to appear for the Junior Civil Judge examinations while doing away with the eligibility requirement of three years of practice.Since a Junior Civil Judge is a higher cadre post compared to that of Assistant Public Prosecutors, the requirement for three-years advocate practice for the latter and not the former was contended as being an unreasonable classification.Further, it was pointed out that there are posts for recruitment by transfer available for court staff cadre ranging from Junior Assistant to Superintendent to acquire the post of a Junior Civil Judge, without any requirement of legal experience as an advocate, but there is no such opportunity available to the constables who have finished LLB for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor through recruitment by transfer. Therefore, it was contended that constables who are law graduates should be considered without any requirement of legal experience as an advocate..These arguments, however, failed to find favour with the top court which dismissed the plea.Advocates Mahima Singh and Sriram Parakkat appeared for the petitioner.