A Delhi High Court notice has been issued regarding a public interest litigation contesting the rule that demands three years of prior Bar practice for direct hiring to the position of Assistant Public Prosecutor within the Delhi Directorate of Prosecution.
The lawsuit, Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Others, asks the court to rule that the three-year practice mandate is unconstitutional and arbitrary. The petition challenges the application of this rule to the ongoing recruitment for 140 APP posts under an advertisement issued by the UPSC on September 10.
Arguments Against the Three-Year Practice Requirement
Filed by Bhumika Trust, the complaint states that this condition prevents qualified law graduates and fresh advocates from applying, simply because they have not completed three years of practice at the Bar.
The challenge principally relies on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and equality of opportunity in public employment. Although the petition acknowledges that competence and readiness are valid goals for selecting prosecutors, it argues that insisting on three years of prior Bar practice as an absolute threshold may not be the only way to achieve those objectives.
Consequences for Candidates with Disabilities
The Trust has also raised the effect of the eligibility condition on persons with benchmark disabilities. It argues that reserving vacancies for these individuals is insufficient to guarantee substantive equality if an initial condition blocks otherwise qualified candidates from entering the selection process.
The validity of the requirement must be tested against whether the authorities possess material demonstrating the necessity of precisely three years’ prior practice and whether the requirement bears a rational relationship with the actual functions of an APP.
The case raises a question that recurs across public recruitment: when does an eligibility condition cross the line from a legitimate filter into an arbitrary barrier? A minimum-experience requirement is not, by itself, impermissible; the State is entitled to set standards to ensure that those it recruits are professionally prepared. If professional preparedness can be secured through induction training, probation, practical attachments, or supervised prosecutorial training after selection, rather than by demanding three years of practice before one may apply, then the absolute pre-entry threshold is harder to justify.
Currently, no decision has been made. The Court has merely issued notice and requested responses from the respondents. At this stage, nothing has been decided.
Proportionality and Judicial Precedent
The case highlights a pending challenge to the three-year Bar-practice requirement for APP recruitment, with the High Court of Delhi seeking responses from the Union Government, Delhi Government, and Directorate of Prosecution. No decision has been made on the merits of the case.
Leave a Reply