Does an LL.B. degree make a clerk fit for a prosecutor’s chair? The Madhya Pradesh High Court has answered no, striking down the 10% clerks’ promotion quota to Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer posts as arbitrary.
Gwalior: No further promotions to the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer (ADPO) can be made under the 10% clerks’ promotion quota, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has directed, declaring ultra vires a 2002 amendment that reserved 10 per cent of ADPO posts for promotion of clerical staff of the prosecution department and holding that it violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution [Rohan Sharma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla, sitting as a Division Bench, allowed two writ petitions, W.P. No. 12769 of 2020 and W.P. No. 27731 of 2026, in a 124-page judgment dated October 29, 2026.
Ministerial posts, not prosecutors
The Bench held that the State had failed to show an intelligible differentia with a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. It found that the clerical posts are ministerial, carry their own channel of promotion and have no direct or indirect contact with the justice dispensation system.
“The posts of CrPC Clerk/ Asstt. Grade III/APCD Grade III are Ministerial and Clerical cadre posts having its independent channel of Promotion and have no direct or indirect contact with Justice Dispensation System. They are not required to adjudicate the rights of the parties. They are not Advocates. Under these circumstances, it is held that the amendment introduced in the year 2002 by which the Schedule II and IV of Rules, 1991 were amended suffers from arbitrariness.”
The prosecutor and Article 21
The Court tied the post of a prosecutor to the State’s duty to protect the life and liberty of its residents, holding that the State’s case in court must be presented by a person with experience of practising law as an advocate.
“Not only the State functionaries are required to act in accordance with law, but at the same time the Public Prosecutor/Govt. Advocate should be an efficient and intelligible one having experience of practising law as an Advocate so that the rights of citizens/residents, as well as, the action of the State can be protected and justified effectively in the Court of law. Therefore, the appointment of persons from Ministerial/clerical cadre of Grade III to the post of ADPO by promotion, will also be violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India.”
Holding an LL.B. degree, the Bench observed, does not by itself create a separate class, and the quota would operate as a route into the Class II cadre for those who had not cleared the Public Service Commission examination. It also noted a 2019 letter of the Director of Prosecution flagging the performance of promoted ADPOs and seeking withdrawal of the quota, which the State had declined in 2021.
What the 2002 amendment changed
The petitions questioned Notification No. F-3-68-99-B-3-2 dated October 14, 2002, published in the Official Gazette on October 18, 2002, which amended Schedules II and IV of the Madhya Pradesh Public Prosecution (Gazetted Services) Recruitment Rules, 1991. Until then, every ADPO post, a Class II position, was filled by direct recruitment. After it, 90 per cent remained direct, while 10 per cent could be filled by promoting CrPC Clerks, Assistant Grade III and Assistant Previous Conviction Detective (APCD) Grade III employees who held an LL.B. degree and had seven years of service.
The first petition came from Rohan Sharma, a Gwalior-based advocate who had appeared in the ADPO examinations; the second from Karan Shrivastava and another. The petitioners argued that clerical posts involve only office work with no link to courtroom practice, that the amendment created a class within a class on the basis of a law degree, and that it gave a single feeder post two promotional avenues.
Delay, standing and the State’s stand
Additional Advocate General Ankur Mody, for the State, relied on the presumption of constitutionality. Counsel for the interveners contended that the challenge had come about 18 years after the amendment and that the petitioners lacked standing.
Rejecting the objection of delay, the Court treated a challenge to the validity of a statutory provision as giving rise to a continuing cause of action. On standing, it noted that the petitioner was a practising lawyer aspiring to the post, and that locus standi becomes secondary where the vires of a provision is questioned.
Past promotions protected
Since the promotees were not parties and their promotions were not under challenge, the Court left promotions already made undisturbed but barred any future promotion under the quota.
“This judgment would not adversely effect the promotion which have already taken place prior to filing of this petition. However, no further promotions to the post of ADPO shall take place.”
Both petitions were allowed with no order as to costs.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling applies the settled test under Articles 14 and 16: a classification in service rules must rest on an intelligible differentia that bears a rational nexus to the object of the rule. The Court found that a shared academic qualification does not erase the difference between ministerial office work and the function of a prosecutor who represents the State in criminal trials.
By linking the quality of prosecution to Article 21, the judgment treats recruitment to prosecutorial posts as a matter that affects the fairness of criminal justice, not merely the career prospects of employees. Its prospective operation balances that concern against the rights of officers already promoted who were not heard.
Case Title: Rohan Sharma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, with Karan Shrivastava and Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
Case No.: W.P. No. 12769 of 2020 and W.P. No. 27731 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:33079
Bench: Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla, Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior
Date of Judgment: October 29, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Abhishek Singh Bhadauriya for the petitioner in W.P. No. 12769 of 2020; Senior Advocate M.P.S. Raghuwanshi with Advocate R.B.S. Tomar for the petitioners in W.P. No. 27731 of 2026; Additional Advocate General Ankur Mody for the State; Advocates D.P. Singh, Prabhakar Singh and Prashant Sharma for the interveners