Regularization of contractual appointees must strictly adhere to Recruitment Rules without obstructing statutory promotional prospects of feeder cadres.

Six appellants, currently serving as regular Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs) since 2016, challenged a High Court Single Bench order dated 27.12.2024

The dispute originated from a State executive order dated 08.07.2022, which regularized the contractual appointment of Respondent No. 2 (A. Neelakumar Singh) as an Additional Public Prosecutor (APP [District])

The appellants argued that under the Recruitment Rules (RR), APP is a promotional post for which they are the feeder category, and direct recruitment/regularization of contractual staff blocks their promotional prospects

The Single Bench modified the State’s order, directing that Respondent No. 2 be regularized as a "Special Public Prosecutor" instead of an "APP (District)," creating a supernumerary post if necessary

The appellants filed this intra-court appeal seeking further clarity, asserting that the Single Bench failed to explicitly quash the irregular appointment to the APP post

Whether the Single Bench order effectively vacated the regularization of Respondent No. 2 to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor (District)

Whether the State is mandated to fill the vacancies of Additional Public Prosecutor (District) specifically through the Recruitment Rules via promotion of eligible Assistant Public Prosecutors

The Court applied the Recruitment Rules (RR) governing the Manipur Judicial Service/Legal posts, which stipulate that "Additional Public Prosecutor" is primarily a promotional post with "Assistant Public Prosecutor" serving as the feeder grade; direct recruitment is only permissible in the absence of suitable promotional candidates

It further applied the principle of "Legal Quietus," noting that since the State did not appeal the Single Bench's directions, those directions became binding on the administration

The Division Bench observed that while the Single Bench stated it was "not inclined to quash" the executive order in paragraph 17, the act of "modifying" the designation of Respondent No. 2 from APP to Special Public Prosecutor logically meant he could no longer occupy the APP slot

The Court noted that Respondent No. 2 expressed no grievance in being shifted to the rank of Special Public Prosecutor

Consequently, the Court found it necessary to clarify the ambiguity in the Single Bench's language to ensure the APP (District) posts remained available for the appellants' promotion

The Bench reasoned that the State’s failure to implement the lower court's order was due to the pendency of this appeal and the interim stay, rather than a lack of merit in the appellants' claims

The direction to regularize Respondent No. 2 as a Special Public Prosecutor with effect from 08.07.2022 (including the creation of a supernumerary post) is confirmed

The State is directed to fill APP vacancies via promotion from eligible APPs as per the Recruitment Rules within one month (on or before 10.05.2026)

Respondent No. 2 shall not be disengaged but must be regularized in the Special Public Prosecutor category