Regularization must strictly adhere to recruitment rules; promotional posts cannot be filled by regularizing contractual appointees.

The Appellants, serving as regular Assistant Public Prosecutors since 2016, challenged an executive order dated 08.07.2022.

This order regularized Respondent No. 2 (R-2) as an Additional Public Prosecutor (District).

The Appellants argued that under the Recruitment Rules (RR), "Additional Public Prosecutor" is a promotional post for which they are the feeder category, and direct recruitment/regularization of a contractual appointee blocks their promotional prospects.

A Single Bench modified the executive order, directing the State to regularize R-2 as a "Special Public Prosecutor" instead, or create a supernumerary post if necessary, but explicitly stated it was not "quashing" the original regularization.

The Appellants filed this intra-court appeal seeking clarity and the setting aside of the R-2's appointment as Additional Public Prosecutor.

Whether the regularization of a contractual appointee to a promotional feeder post (Additional Public Prosecutor) is legally sustainable when eligible departmental candidates are available.

Whether the Single Bench order, by "modifying" rather than "quashing" the executive order, effectively left the illegal appointment in place.

The Court applied the Manipur Public Service Commission Recruitment Rules (RR) regarding the appointment of Additional Public Prosecutors.

It upheld the principle that where a post is designated as a promotional post, the State must priority-consider eligible candidates from the feeder cadre (Assistant Public Prosecutors) before resorting to other methods of recruitment.

The Court also exercised its appellate jurisdiction to clarify the distinction between "modification" and "quashing" of an administrative order to ensure the protection of statutory promotional rights.

The Division Bench found that while the Single Bench intended to protect the Appellants' promotional prospects by shifting R-2 to the post of "Special Public Prosecutor," the language in paragraph 17 of the impugned order—stating it was "not inclined to quash" the original regularization—created legal ambiguity.

The Court reasoned that if the original regularization as an Additional Public Prosecutor was not formally set aside, it would continue to block the Appellants' seniority and promotion.

To resolve this, the Court harmonized the Appellants’ rights with R-2’s status (which the State did not contest) by confirming R-2’s regularization as a Special Public Prosecutor (a distinct stream) while explicitly setting aside his appointment in the Additional Public Prosecutor cadre.

It held that the executive order dated 08.07.2022 is set aside insofar as it regularized R-2 as Additional Public Prosecutor.

The Court confirmed the direction to regularize R-2 as a Special Public Prosecutor (with a supernumerary post if required) effective from 08.07.2022.

Crucially, the Court directed the State to fill the vacancies of Additional Public Prosecutors by considering the eligible Assistant Public Prosecutors for promotion as per the RR within one month (on or before 10.05.2026).

R-2 is not to be disengaged but must be regularized only in the "Special" category.