Recently the Indian Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by a contract Public Prosecutor who was seeking regularization of his service. The Supreme Court said that such a claim has no legal basis and would be contrary to established laws and procedures.
A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi found no fault in the earlier decision of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ application for regularization.
The bench said, "The petitioner has not been able to establish any right, statutory or constitutional, which would entitle him to the relief of regularization."
Read also: Why did the Supreme Court Suspend Kiran Kumar's Sentence in Vismaya Dowry Death Case?
The petitioner was working as Assistant Public Prosecutor in Purulia, West Bengal since June 20, 2014. He was appointed by the District Magistrate to fill a vacancy and was paid ₹459 per court appearance, limited to two cases per day. Later, he was also appointed to prosecute cases in the Raghunathpur court.
The petitioner had approached the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) for regularization. Initially, on December 16, 2022, the SAT accepted his claim. However, the Principal Secretary of the Judicial Department rejected the regularization request on June 12, 2023.
Subsequently, the petitioner again moved the tribunal seeking several reliefs - including quashing of the government order, ensuring job security, equal pay and regularization. The tribunal, on review, found that he was hired purely on contract basis and that he himself had requested for continuation of the appointment for livelihood reasons.
The Supreme Court highlighted that, "Appointment of Additional Public Prosecutors is a structured process under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the respective State Rules. Regularising a person appointed on contract would be contrary to law."
The appointment process, which was earlier governed by Section 24 of the CrPC, is now regulated by Section 18 of the Code for Protection of Indian Citizens (BNSS). Both the provisions mandate that the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors should be made by the State Government in consultation with the District Magistrate and Sessions Judge, and only from among advocates with at least seven years of practice.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that their fees had not been revised for over a decade and were much lower than those of panel lawyers. The State Government responded that no law entitled them to demand such benefits. The high court upheld this stance, but gave them the liberty to approach the authorities for possible fee revision.
Read also: Appeal to Dismiss "Kahaani 2" Script Case in SC, Notice Issued on Sujoy Ghosh's Plea
Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the high court's findings and dismissed the special leave petition, ruling that the petitioner's claim lacked legal merit.
"The claim for regularization of a person employed in the said post on contract basis cannot be considered, as such relief would be contrary to law," the apex court said while dismissing the case.
