The Delhi High Court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia, on Wednesday examined a Public Interest Litigation challenging the mandatory requirement of three years’ prior practice at the Bar for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) in the Directorate of Prosecution, Government of NCT of Delhi.
The petition challenges the Assistant Public Prosecutor Recruitment Rules, 2025, notified on January 19, 2026, insofar as they prescribe three years’ Bar experience as an essential eligibility condition. The challenge has acquired urgency following UPSC Advertisement No. 11/2026 dated September 10, 2026, inviting applications for 140 APP posts, including eight vacancies reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDs). The application process is scheduled to close on October 2, 2026.
During the hearing, the Bench examined the maintainability of the PIL and the petitioner’s locus, particularly in view of the argument that the challenge concerns a recruitment condition and could consequently have a service-matter dimension. The Bench, however, also observed that there is no absolute bar on entertaining a PIL in service matters, making the nature of the challenge and the petitioner’s locus relevant considerations rather than treating the service-related character as an automatic bar to the proceedings.
The Bench also considered whether the grievance could appropriately be pursued before a service tribunal, while examining the distinction between a challenge to an individual service grievance and a broader challenge to an eligibility condition applicable to an entire class of prospective candidates. The petition itself contends that the challenge is not directed towards an individual appointment but against a uniform eligibility prescription affecting otherwise qualified law graduates and newly enrolled advocates.
On the substantive challenge, reliance was placed on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence concerning the requirement of prior practice for entry into legal and judicial public service,. The petition argues that the subsequent Supreme Court framework demonstrates that professional preparedness can also be addressed through structured training, practical exposure and clerkship mechanisms, although it acknowledges that the judicial service and prosecutorial service operate under distinct statutory and constitutional frameworks.
The Bench also distinguished the requirement applicable to judicial officers from the recruitment of APPs, noting that the posts and their statutory functions are not identical. In this context, the Bench referred to Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) dealing with the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors, and considered the proviso to Section 18(2) while examining the statutory framework governing prosecutorial appointments.
The Court’s consideration of Section 18 was significant to the question whether the three-year practice requirement applicable to judicial service can be directly transposed to the appointment of APPs, given the distinct statutory scheme governing prosecution appointments.
The petition challenges the three-year requirement on the ground that it operates as an absolute threshold excluding otherwise qualified candidates and questions whether precisely three years of prior Bar practice is indispensable for discharging the functions of an APP. It also relies on recruitment frameworks in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, where analogous entry-level prosecutorial posts have been advertised without an identical three-year prior-practice requirement.
The petition further points out that the ongoing Delhi recruitment covers 140 APP vacancies, including eight PwBD vacancies, and seeks interim protection to enable otherwise qualified candidates who do not satisfy the three-year practice condition to provisionally participate in the selection process, subject to the outcome of the petition.
The Bench also sought clarification regarding the description and role of certain respondents, including the UPSC and the concerned government authorities.
The matter was thereafter directed to be taken up on a subsequent date, with the respondents seeking time to address the issues raised by the Bench.