APPs Are Distinct From Ministerial Staff, Not Entitled To Upper Age Relaxation Under Judicial Service Rules: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that Assistant Public Prosecutors cannot be treated as ministerial staff for the purpose of claiming the higher upper-age limit prescribed under the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008. The Court ruled that the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor is distinct from the categories of ministerial staff specified and dismissed a petition seeking the benefit of the age relaxation.

A Division Bench of Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale was hearing a writ petition filed by an Assistant Public Prosecutor challenging the eligibility criteria for recruitment to the posts of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class under the Maharashtra Public Service Commission.

The petitioner, who had been working as an Assistant Public Prosecutor since January 2025, contended that the recruitment process for the 2024 examination had commenced only in 2026, causing her to lose two years through no fault of her own. She further argued that Assistant Public Prosecutors should be treated as ministerial staff under Rule 5, Table C, since the Rules did not define the expression "ministerial staff".

The petitioner sought a declaration that Assistant Public Prosecutors were entitled to the same upper-age limit as ministerial staff, as well as a separate category for Public Prosecutors in the recruitment advertisement.

The Court noted that Table C of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules prescribes an upper age limit of 35 years for advocates with three years of practice, 25 years for fresh law graduates and 45 years for ministerial staff. Candidates belonging to recognised backward communities are entitled to an additional five years of relaxation.

Since the petitioner belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, the applicable upper-age limit would be 40 years if treated as an advocate and 50 years if treated as ministerial staff. However, the Court noted that she was over 42 years and six months old on the date of publication of the advertisement and had crossed 40 years even before December 2023. It therefore held that she was ineligible under the advocate category.

Rejecting her claim to the ministerial-staff category, the Court observed that the specific categories enumerated under the relevant Rules distinguished ministerial staff from the offices of Government Pleaders. It held that the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor was separate from the specified description of ministerial staff and, therefore, the petitioner could not claim the corresponding age relaxation.

“… ministerial staff is distinct from Government Pleaders office because the second category specifically mentions the ministerial staff of the offices of Government Pleaders attached to those Courts. The post of Assistant Public Prosecutor is separate from the description of ministerial staff. Therefore, in our opinion, the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor cannot be described as a member of the ministerial staff,” the Court remarked.

The Court also found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate how the recruitment rules were arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory. Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Roma Laxman Tribhuwan v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 6676 of 2026]