Merely Because Ministerial Staff Hold LL.B. Degree, They Don’t Constitute Separate Class: Madhya Pradesh High Court Strikes Down 10% Promotion Quota For Clerks To ADPO Post
The Court held that the direct promotion of Class III clerical staff to Class II prosecutor post is arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 16 and 21; promotions already granted left undisturbed, but no further promotions allowed.
Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, Justice Anuradha Shukla, Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench has held that holding an LL.B. degree does not make ministerial staff of the prosecution department a separate class entitled to a distinct promotional avenue directly to a Class II post. It struck down the 10% promotion quota for feeder post Cr.P.C. of Clerks, Assistant Grade III and APCD Grade III employees to the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer (ADPO).
The Court held that the 2002 amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Public Prosecution (Gazetted Services) Recruitment Rules, 1991 was arbitrary and ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It protected promotions already made, as the promoted employees were neither impleaded nor challenged.
A Division Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla observed, “The posts of CrPC clerk/Asstt. Grade III/APCD Grade III are Ministerial posts and are only required to do office work. Merely because they hold LL.B. or equivalent degree, would not constitute a separate class requiring separate treatment by providing separate promotional avenues directly to class II from Class III whereas the other CrPC clerks/Asstt. Grade III/APCD Grade III who are not holding LL.B. or equivalent degree will get promotion to another class III post i.e., Asstt. Grade II”.
“…If this method is allowed, then it would amount to backdoor entry to Class II cadre without clearing PSC examination. Furthermore, merely because a person is holding a higher qualification in comparison to a person who is holding only the minimum qualification or any other qualification, then he cannot be put in an advantageous position”, it said.
Advocate Abhishek Singh Bhadauriya appeared for the petitioner and Ankur Mody, Additional Advocate General appeared for the respondent.
“…Merely because some persons were further promoted to District Public Prosecution Officer cannot be a criteria to justify the amendment. The criteria for promotion from class II post to another class II Post is Seniority cum merit basis. If a person is Senior and is fulfilling the benchmark, then he cannot be denied promotion. Therefore, merely because some of the Promotee ADPO‘s were further promoted to the post of District Public Prosecution Officer which is also of Class II Post and the criteria for promotion is Seniority cum Merit basis, cannot be said to be sufficient and proper reason to reject the recommendation made by the Director, Prosecution to withdraw 10% quota of promotion to the post of ADPO‘s”, it noted further.
The lead petitioner, Rohan Sharma, is a practising advocate at Gwalior who unsuccessfully appeared in the ADPO examinations in 2011 and 2015. Before the 2002 amendment, ADPO posts were filled entirely by direct recruitment. The amendment reserved 10% for promotion of clerical staff holding an LL.B. degree, with seven years’ service and an upper age limit of 40.
The petitioners argued that clerical staff perform ministerial work only, and that the amendment created two promotional avenues for a single feeder post. The State’s counsel conceded that no intelligible differentia had been shown and that a single feeder post cannot have two such avenues. Interveners pleaded delay of 18 years, lack of locus, and the presumption of constitutionality. They also said 30 employees had been promoted up to 2016. The Director of Prosecution had recommended withdrawal of the quota on July 4, 2019, but the State rejected this on March 1, 2021.
The Court found the classification lacked intelligible differentia, since the minimum qualification for the clerical posts is identical and their duties are purely ministerial. Referring to Supreme Court rulings on the public office held by prosecutors, including Mahabir & Ors. v. State of Haryana, decided on 29/01/2025 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 5560-5561 of 2024, it said the clerical posts have no connection with the justice delivery system. It said the quota created a “short cut” to a Class II post without clearing the Public Service Commission examination.
The Court also noted that an ADPO must be an enrolled advocate who has cleared the All India Bar Examination, and that a full-time government employee cannot be enrolled under Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules. It added that the State’s counsel conceded a Grade III post could not be placed in the 1991 Rules, and that any amendment should have been made in the 1998 Rules.
On delay, it held that the validity of a provision is a continuing cause of action. It also held that failure to achieve good results does not by itself make a provision ultra vires, though the Director’s letter showed the absence of a reasonable nexus with the object.
The Court declared the October 2002 amendment ultra vires, protected promotions made before the petition was filed, and barred further promotions. The petitions were allowed with no order as to costs.
Cause Title: Rohan Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:33079)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Abhishek Singh Bhadauriya, Senior Advocate M.P.S. Raghuwanshi with Advocate R.B.S. Tomar.
Respondent: Additional Advocate General Ankur Mody, while Advocates D.P. Singh, Prabhakar Singh and Prashant Sharma for the interveners.