Concerns Raised Over Delhi's Public Prosecutor Recruitment Notification
Advocate Challenges Recruitment Process
In Delhi, an advocate has formally approached key government officials, including the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary (Home) of the Delhi government, the Secretary of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), and the Director of Prosecution. This memorandum, submitted by Advocate Vikas Verma, expresses strong objections to a recent notification regarding the recruitment of public prosecutors.
The Directorate of Prosecution of the Government of Delhi (GNCTD) has issued a notification inviting applications for the recruitment of retired prosecutors on a contractual basis. This announcement was made public through print media and the directorate's website. Verma's memorandum criticizes this notification as unconstitutional, arbitrary, and discriminatory towards younger legal professionals.
The memorandum contends that this recruitment approach allows retired officers to bypass the established recruitment protocols set by UPSC or other statutory bodies.
Supreme Court Judgments Referenced
Verma referenced Supreme Court rulings, including State of Karnataka vs Umadevi (2006) and Renu vs District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari (2014), which underscore the necessity for transparent and competitive recruitment for public positions. He pointed out that the number of advertised posts exceeds the sanctioned limit, as indicated in the Delhi government's affidavit in Court on Its Own Motion vs State (NCT of Delhi) dated July 2025.
The advocate accused the notification of being issued with malicious intent, favoring a select group of retirees while neglecting thousands of qualified young advocates.
Violation of Reservation Policies
Verma claimed that the recruitment process contravenes Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. He argued that limiting eligibility to retired prosecutors excludes candidates from SC, ST, and OBC categories, thus disregarding reservation policies and judicial mandates.
He criticized the directorate for overlooking the Delhi High Court's directives to recruit through UPSC and for implementing an interview process exclusively for retirees.
Allegations of Lack of Consultation
Verma also alleged that the Delhi Bar Council and other relevant stakeholders were not consulted, violating principles of natural justice. He expressed concerns that appointing retired prosecutors, who are already receiving pensions, would impose unnecessary financial burdens on the state, while regular recruitment would enhance institutional continuity and efficiency.
He cautioned that permitting such appointments could establish a precedent for arbitrary recruitment practices in government sectors, undermining fairness in public employment. Verma urged the government to align its actions with the Directive Principles of State Policy and referenced State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh (2024) to advocate for a framework promoting affirmative action.
Demands for Action
In conclusion, Verma called for the immediate retraction of the notification, a formal investigation into its issuance, and a halt on any appointments made under its provisions. He insisted that future recruitments should be conducted solely through UPSC or other legally established bodies to ensure a merit-based and inclusive selection process.