Telangana High Court junks plea against 3-year practice criterion for Assistant Public Prosecutor appointment

The Telangana High Court on Friday dismissed a plea challenging the requirement that candidates seeking to be appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) should have at least three years of active practice as a lawyer in criminal courts [Kappera Rajesh v. State of Telangana].

A Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin dismissed the plea after noting that it is up to an employer to lay down educational as well as experience criteria for recruitment.

The Court added that when it comes to the appointment of APP, the idea is to have candidates who are conversant with criminal law practice.

"Functioning of criminal courts requires assistance of a particular nature which rule making authorities perceive to be minimum experience at the bar..  Idea is to introduce people who are conversant with criminal cases, not those who have just passed out from law colleges and straightaway become (law officers). The whole system will get affected," the Chief Justice orally observed.

The plea before the Court challenged Rule 5 of the Telangana State Prosecution Rules, 1992 insofar as it mandated three years of active practice in criminal courts in the State for being recruited as APP.

A recruitment notification issued on August 15 mandating this criterion was also challenged as being arbitrary and unconstitutional.

The petition filed by one Kappera Rajesh, through advocate Baglekar Akash Kumar, further urged the Court to issue directions to allow lawyers to participate in the forthcoming APP recruitment without any insistence on the three years practice criterion.

The petitioner's counsel today argued that there is no check in mechanism to ensure that candidates actually have three years of active experience.

He pointed out that a candidate who may have passed out of law colleges some years back may claim to have such experience, even though they may have simply spent years going to coaching institutes or reading books at home. He contended that without any verification mechanism, the criterion of three-years experience would violate the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and rights to equal employment opportunities under Article 16.

He recounted that even when the Supreme Court laid down that those applying to be judicial magistrates at the entry level must have three years of practice as a lawyer, there was a verification mechanism put in place. No such mechanism is there in this case, the lawyer argued.

However, the Court dismissed the argument, stating that this is just a question of verifying the credentials submitted by the candidate.

"That’s a question of verification of credential produced by candidate. And it has happened sometimes it has happened that candidature was cancelled because certificate from someone who is not in actual practice," the Court said.

The petitioner's counsel urged the Court to intervene on the ground of equity. He pointed out that the last APP recruitment notification was issued in 2021, and the latest notification has come in 2025 and that too after court intervention.

He submitted that the next recruitment notification may take years and that young, talented lawyers may lose out on opportunities and may lose interest in pursuing APP recruitment in the meanwhile.

"That’s not an argument which prevails," the Bench replied while rejecting the petition.