SHAKTI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, the petitioners herein being aspiring candidates seeking appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutors, have assailed the vires/validity of Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (for short, 'the Rules of 1978') and the Schedule appended thereto, to the extent the same stipulates two years' experience at bar or as a Prosecuting Sub-Inspector, as the case may be.

(2.) Mr. Paramveer Singh Champawat, learned counsel representing the petitioners, vehemently and fervently urged that requirement of experience for recruitment as Assistant Public Prosecutor has been done away in the States of Bihar, Uttarakhand and many more. He placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India [2002 (2) SCR 712], wherein the requirement of 3 years' standing as an Advocate for selection in judicial service was struck down. He, thus, urged that the unwarranted criterion of experience at the bar or in service as a Prosecuting Sub-Inspector for staking claim for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor is totally unjustified. He urged that the Assistant Public Prosecutor would be performing the duties in the court of Judicial Magistrate at the base level in the judiciary and would gain experience by working in the courts over a period of time. Thus, ignoring merit in the garb of experience is not at all justified. On these submissions, Mr. Champawat implored the court to accept the writ petition and strike down the vires of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1978 and the Schedule appended thereto to the extent it prescribes experience as a qualifying criteria.

(3.) We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material placed on record.