HC fixes March 30 for hearing plea challenging Haryana’s promotion of prosecution officials

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday fixed March 30 for hearing a writ petition challenging Haryana’s action of filling up senior prosecution posts by promotion without public advertisement, a step alleged to be in direct conflict with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The petition, placed before the division bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, assails the Haryana State Prosecution Department Legal Services (Group ‘A’) Amendment Rules, 2025, and the consequential order dated December 31, 2025, under which posts of Deputy Director of Prosecution were filled by promotion. Petitioner-advocate Pardeep Kumar Rapria contends that the amendment goes beyond the parent Act and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

Referring to Section 20(2) of the BNSS, Rapria says the provision makes it clear that “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”.

The petitioner, a practising advocate with over 18 years’ experience, including professional stints with the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Central Information Commission (CIC), claims to fulfil all eligibility conditions. He argues that the state amended the Haryana State Prosecution Department Legal Services (Group 'A') Rules, 2013, providing that the posts of Additional Director, Deputy Director, and Assistant Director of Prosecution shall be filled by promotion, transfer, or deputation from amongst serving officers

Taking advantage of the amended rules, the state promoted respondents to the posts of Deputy Director of Prosecution without issuing any public advertisement or inviting applications from eligible advocates, says the petitioner. The action has been termed “opaque, arbitrary and discriminatory”, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and depriving eligible candidates of fair consideration.

Going into the technicalities, the petition asserts that delegated legislation cannot override or be inconsistent with the parent Act, and seeks quashing of both the amendment rules and the promotion order.