Delhi HC stays recruitment notice for retired prosecutors; questions bias against young lawyers

New Delhi [India] September 1 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Monday put on hold a recruitment notice issued by the Directorate of Prosecution, Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD), inviting applications from retired prosecutors for contractual appointments.
A bench of Justice Sachin Datta stayed the operation of the notice and directed all respondents to file their responses. During the hearing, the court pointedly asked the Director of Prosecution, "How can you discriminate against young lawyers?"
The petition challenging the notice was filed by advocate Vikas Verma, represented by a team of lawyers led by Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur. Advocates Amit Saxena, Nitika Gupta, and Prachi Gupta also appeared, while Verma himself was present in person.
Last week, Verma submitted a detailed representation to key authorities, including the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary (Home) of Delhi, the Secretary of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), and the Director of Prosecution. He strongly opposed the recruitment notice, calling it unconstitutional, arbitrary, and discriminatory against young legal professionals.
Verma argued that the move bypasses the established recruitment process through UPSC or other statutory bodies, effectively creating a backdoor entry for retired officials. He cited landmark Supreme Court rulings -- State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) and Renu v. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari (2014) -- which emphasize the need for transparent and competitive recruitment in public employment.
He further contended that the number of posts advertised exceeds the sanctioned strength of Public Prosecutors, pointing to a recent Delhi Government affidavit submitted in Court on its Own Motion vs State (NCT of Delhi) in July 2025.
Appearing for Verma, Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur submitted that the Directorate of Prosecution had no authority to issue such a notice for hiring retired prosecutors. He argued that this power vests only with the GNCTD and not with the Directorate itself, making the entire exercise legally untenable.
The petition also claims violations of Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which safeguard equality before law, equal opportunity in public employment, and the right to practice a profession. Verma also invoked Article 51A(j), which obligates citizens to strive for excellence, arguing that meritless appointments undermine this constitutional ideal.
He alleged that the notification excludes SC, ST, and OBC candidates by restricting eligibility to retired prosecutors, thereby bypassing reservation policies. According to him, the Directorate ignored earlier Delhi High Court directions mandating recruitment through UPSC and instead adopted a process limited to interviews with retirees, raising fears of favouritism and lack of transparency.
Verma stressed that hiring retired prosecutors who already draw pensions would add financial burden on the state and weaken institutional continuity. In contrast, fresh recruitment would ensure both efficiency and long-term stability.
He warned that if such appointments are allowed, it could set a precedent for arbitrary hiring practices across government departments, undermining fairness and inclusivity in public service. Referring to State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), he urged the government to align its actions with evolving affirmative action principles under the Directive Principles of State Policy. (ANI)