Chandigarh, Jan 19: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has scheduled a March 30 hearing for a legal challenge against the Haryana government’s decision to fill senior prosecution roles through promotions rather than public recruitment. This move allegedly bypasses the statutory requirements set by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
A division bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor took up the writ petition, which targets the Haryana State Prosecution Department Legal Services (Group ‘A’) Amendment Rules, 2025.
The petitioner specifically contests a December 31, 2025, order that utilized these new rules to promote internal staff to Deputy Director of Prosecution positions.
Pardeep Kumar Rapria, an advocate and the petitioner in the case, argued that the state’s amendment is unconstitutional because it contradicts federal law. He noted that Section 20(2) of the BNSS mandates specific qualifications for such high-ranking roles that the current promotion scheme ignores.
“A person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Director or Deputy Director of Prosecution only if he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than 15 years or is or has been a Sessions Judge,” Rapria said, citing the legal provision.
The petitioner, who has 18 years of legal experience including work with the National Investigation Agency, claimed the state’s revised 2013 rules allow for Additional, Deputy, and Assistant Director posts to be filled via transfer or promotion from within serving officers. Rapria mentioned that this framework allows the state to bypass public advertisements, effectively blocking qualified external candidates from applying.
The petition asserts that delegated legislation must remain consistent with its parent Act. By promoting respondents without inviting applications from the wider legal community, the state’s actions are described in the filing as opaque and discriminatory.
The plea seeks the immediate quashing of both the 2025 amendment and the resulting promotion orders, alleging a violation of constitutional rights to fair consideration for public employment.
