The Madhya Pradesh High Court has struck down a 2002 amendment to the MP Public Prosecution Recruitment Rules that provided 10% promotion quota for directly appointing clerks in the prosecution department as Assistant District Public Prosecutors (ADPOs). [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 441]

Holding that the amendment violated Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, the division bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla observed:

"Advocate should be an efficient and intelligible one having experience of practising law as an Advocate so that the rights of citizens/residents, as well as, the action of the State can be protected and justified effectively in the Court of law. Therefore, the appointment of persons from Ministerial/clerical cadre of Grade III to the post of ADPO by promotion, will also be violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India".

The amendment, introduced through notification dated October 14, 2002, provided that 10% of the posts of ADPO would be filled through promotion from the cadre of CrPC Clerks, Assistant Grade III, and APCD Grade III Employees, subject to the conditions including possession of an LLB degree and at least seven years of service. The remaining 90% of the posts were to be filled through direct recruitment.

Challenging this provision, the petitioners approached the High Court, contending that the amendment created arbitrary classification among the employees belonging to the same ministerial cadre and provided an unjustified route to appointment to Class II posts.

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment, arguing that the employees belonging to the ministerial/clearical cadre could not be provided a separate promotional avenue to the post of ADPO merely because they possessed an LLB degree. Therefore, providing a promotional route to such posts without subjecting the candidates to the prescribed direct recruitment process was arbitrary and discriminatory.

The court noted that the posts of CrPC Clerk, Assistant Grade III and APCD Grade III were essentially ministerial and clerical in nature. Their duties do not involve participation in judicial decision-making, conducting criminal trials, or examining witnesses. In contrast, the court noted that ADPOs performed significant responsibilities in the criminal justice system, including conducting trials, providing legal services to investigating agencies, and more.

The bench observed that "The job of a Public Prosecutor is that of assisting the State in the administration of Justice and is not a representative of any party. His job is to ensure fair play. The expected attitude of the Public Prosecutor while conducting prosecution must be couched in fairness not only to the Court, to the investigation agencies but to the accused as well".

The bench held that merely because certain employees belonging to the ministerial cadre possessed an LLB degree, they could not be treated as separately entitled to a distinct promotional avenue to Class II post, particularly when the other employees belonging to the same cadre were confined to the existing promotional channel within Class III.

Thus, the bench held, "Therefore, the classification done by the State i.e., CrPC clerks/Asstt. Grade III/APCD Grade III having LL.B. or equivalent degree and CrPC clerks/Asstt. Grade III/APCD Grade III having only minimum qualification or any other higher qualification other than LL.B. or equivalent degree cannot be held to an intelligible differentia".

The court further noted that the amendment effectively provided an alternative route to enter Class II cadre for persons who might have failed to qualify in the recruitment examination conducted by MP Public Service Commission. It noted that an individual who could not clear the prescribed recruitment examination could first enter the prosecution department as CrPC Clerk, Assistant Grade III, APCD Grade III employee and, after completing seven years of service, become eligible for promotion to the post of ADPO.

The court observed, "A person fails to pass recruitment test conducted by PSC as required under Article 309 of Constitution, would get another opportunity to get appointed to the Class II post of ADPO by adopting another method i.e., by serving the Prosecution Office as CrPC clerk or Asstt. Grade III or APCD Grade III for 7 years. If this method is allowed, then it would amount to backdoor entry to Class II cadre without clearing PSC examination".

The court also took note of the communication of July 4, 2019, issued by the Director of Prosecution recommending withdrawal of 10% promotional quota. The communication highlighted that employees promoted through this route had not been sufficiently effective in discharging the responsibilities of ADPO. The bench also noted that the State's rejection of the recommendation was evasive. It further held that the fact that some promoted ADPOs had subsequently secured further promotion could not, by itself, justify the continuation of the impugned provision.

The bench ultimately held that the State had failed to establish any reasonable basis for creating a separate promotional avenue for ministerial employees to the post of ADPO. Thus, the bench concluded

"For the reasons mentioned above, it is held that the amendment done by State in Schedule II and IV of Rules, 1991 by Notification No. F3-68-99-B-3-2 dated 14-10-2002 published in Official Gazette on 18-10-2002 is ultra vires of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India. However, it is also held that since, the persons who were already granted promotion by virtue of impugned amendment were neither made a party nor their promotions have been challenged, therefore, this judgment would not adversely effect the promotion which have already taken place prior to filing of this petition. However, no further promotions to the post of ADPO shall take place".

For Petitioners: Senior Advocate M.P.S. Raghuwanshi with Advocates Abhishek Singh Bhadauriya and R.B.S. Tomar

For Intervener: Advocates D.P.Singh, Prabhakar Singh and Prashant Sharma

For State: Additional Advocate General Ankur Mody