The Supreme Court has dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by a contractual Assistant Public Prosecutor seeking regularisation of his services, affirming that he lacked any statutory or constitutional entitlement to such relief.
A Bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision rejecting the petitioner’s writ application. The apex court observed that the petitioner was unable to establish any enforceable legal right to demand regularisation of his contractual appointment.
“The petitioner has not been able to establish any right either statutory or constitutional so as to deserve the relief of regularisation,” the Bench observed. It further added, “The appointment of Additional Public Prosecutors is a structured procedure as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the relevant Rules prevalent in the particular State. Thus, a claim for regularisation of a person working on the said post on contractual basis cannot be entertained as such relief would be contrary to law.”
The Court also noted that the petitioner had on several occasions requested the District Magistrate, Purulia, to allow his continued engagement on a contractual basis, citing his need to earn a livelihood.
The petitioner had initially been appointed on June 20, 2014, to perform duties as an Assistant Public Prosecutor before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Purulia, West Bengal. His engagement was contractual, and he was paid a fee of ₹459 per appearance, limited to two cases per day. He was later assigned additional responsibilities in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Raghunathpur.
Seeking regularisation, enhancement of fees, job security, and equal pay, the petitioner approached the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. Though the Tribunal initially ruled in his favour on December 16, 2022, the State Government, through the Principal Secretary, Judicial Department, rejected his request on June 12, 2023.
Upon reconsideration, the Tribunal upheld the State’s stand, stating that the petitioner had not been appointed through a regular process and had no legal basis for seeking regularisation or parity in pay with regularly appointed prosecutors.
The Calcutta High Court concurred with the Tribunal’s findings, holding that there was no statutory provision under which the petitioner could claim regularisation or enhanced remuneration. However, the High Court allowed the petitioner liberty to approach the competent authority to seek a revision of his fees, directing that such a request be considered on merit.
Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now replaced by Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), mandates that Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors must be appointed by the State Government in consultation with the District Magistrate and Sessions Judge, from among advocates with a minimum of seven years of practice. Where a regular cadre exists, appointments must ordinarily be made from within that cadre.
Upholding this legal framework, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioner’s plea and dismissed the matter accordingly.
