Punjab and Haryana High Court seeks Haryana’s reply on plea challenging prosecution service rules
Experienced advocate argues amendments to Haryana prosecution service rules discriminate against private lawyers and violate central law on eligibility for senior posts.
File photo of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Punjab and Haryana High Court Monday issued notice to the Haryana government on a writ petition filed by a senior advocate challenging recent amendments to the state’s prosecution service rules.
A division bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor admitted the petition and directed the state to file its response. The petitioner argued that by creating a separate and ‘discriminatory’ class of advocates, the state had taken away the rights of advocates possessing 15 years of experience.
The petitioner, Pardeep Kumar Rapria, a practising advocate with more than 18 years of experience, appeared in person. He has earlier appeared before the high court and the Supreme Court and has also served as a law officer with national agencies.
In his petition, Rapria has challenged the Haryana State Prosecution Legal Services (Group A) Amendment Rules, 2025, notified on December 18, 2025. He has also questioned a promotion order dated December 31, 2025, through which several serving officers were elevated to the post of deputy director of prosecution.
Rapria argued that the amendments are contrary to Section 20 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the central law that replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision states that a person can be appointed as director or deputy director of prosecution only if they have practised as an advocate for at least 15 years or have served as a sessions judge. For the post of assistant director, the requirement is a minimum of seven years of advocacy practice or experience as a first-class magistrate.
The petitioner contended that the amended state rules allow senior posts to be filled entirely through promotion from within the service, or by transfer or deputation from other governments. This, he said, effectively excludes private practising advocates who otherwise fulfil the eligibility conditions prescribed under the central law.
Rapria described the amendments as being beyond the legislative competence of the state government and, therefore, void from the outset. He argued that subordinate legislation framed by the state cannot override or contradict a central statute.
The petition further stated that the December 31 promotion order was issued without any public advertisement or invitation of applications from eligible advocates, rendering the process opaque and arbitrary. Around 24 serving officers were promoted through the order, and their names have been arrayed as private respondents in the case.
The petitioner submitted that he fulfils the 15-year experience requirement and also holds additional qualifications, including postgraduate diplomas in cyber law and intellectual property law.
Rapria has sought the quashing of both the amendment rules and the promotion order, contending that they violate the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16. He has also sought an interim stay on the operation of the rules and the promotion order during the pendency of the case.
The high court has now sought the state government’s reply. The matter is expected to be listed for further hearing after the response is filed.
Share
