Dispute over prosecutor post dogs HC
Source: Chronicle News Service

Imphal, July 25 2025: A protracted legal battle over the appointment of a public prosecutor continues to grip the Manipur High Court as a group of senior Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs) filed a writ appeal challenging the regularisation of Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Asem Neelakumar Singh.

The appeal contests the December 27, 2024, judgment passed by Justice A Guneshwar Sharma in WP (C) No 540 of 2022, which upheld Neelakumar's appointment by modifying his designation from Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) to Special Public Prosecutor (SPP).

The appellants claimed that the decision undermines constitutional guarantees of equal opportunity in public employment and violates established recruitment norms.

The petitioners, who were initially appointed on contract between 2009 and 2010 and were regularised in December 2016, argued that Neelakumar's engagement, made on a contractual basis in 2019 arid later regularised through an executive order dated July 8, 2022, flouted both the 1982 and the 2019 Recruitment Rules.

According to the rules, promotion to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor must be made from within the existing cadre, with direct recruitment only permitted when no eligible internal candidates are available.

The petitioners contended that the state's move to regularise Neelakumar's appointment was in clear defiance of the High Court's earlier directive in WP (C) No 896 of 2018, which barred direct appointments to promotional posts.

The controversy had already led to further litigation, including WP (C) No 5 of 2020 and a contempt petition filed in 2021 .

Although the High Court, in its December 2024 ruling, acknowledged the irregularity in the appointment to the APP post, it allowed the appointment to stand by modifying it to SPP and suggested the creation of a supernumerary post, if necessary.

The appellants now argue that this judicial modification amounts to overreach and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee fairness and equality in public employment.

Citing the Supreme Court rulings in Karnataka State RTC vs Ashrafulla Khan and Panchraj Tiwari vs MP SEB, the petitioners contended that regularising appointments made in violation of rules sets a dangerous precedent.

They also claimed that it obstructs their own chances of promotion.

The writ appeal seeks to quash both the High Court's December 27, 2024, judgment and the July 8, 2022, executive order.

The petitioners have also sought interim relief to stay the impugned order and de manded enforcement of the High Court's earlier directive issued on June 1, 2022 .

Comment