Regularization of contractual appointees must strictly adhere to Recruitment Rules without obstructing statutory promotional prospects of eligible feeder-grade officers.

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 contended that under the Recruitment Rules (RR), Assistant Public Prosecutor is the feeder post for promotion to Additional Public Prosecutor, and direct recruitment or regularization should only occur if no suitable promotional candidates exist

A Single Bench modified the executive order, directing the State to regularize R-2 as a "Special Public Prosecutor" instead of "Additional Public Prosecutor" to protect the Appellants' promotional prospects

However, the Single Bench stated it was "not inclined to quash" the original regularization

The Appellants filed this intra-court appeal to resolve the ambiguity and ensure their promotional path remained clear

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

Whether the Single Bench order, by "modifying" rather than "quashing" the regularization in the specific post, created a legal ambiguity regarding the Appellants' seniority and promotional rights

The Court applied the Recruitment Rules (RR) governing the Manipur Judicial Service/Legal service, specifically the principle that "Additional Public Prosecutor" is a promotional post where promotion is the first option, and direct recruitment is a secondary resort

The court also exercised its appellate jurisdiction under the High Court Rules to clarify and correct a "typographical error" and procedural ambiguity in a sub-judice matter

The Division Bench found that while the Single Bench intended to protect the Appellants by moving R-2 to the post of Special Public Prosecutor, the language used in Paragraph 17—stating it was "not inclined to quash" the regularization—created a contradiction

The Court reasoned that to effectively protect the Appellants' rights under the RR, the regularization of R-2 as an Additional Public Prosecutor must be explicitly set aside

The Court noted that R-2 and the State did not object to R-2 being regularized as a Special Public Prosecutor instead

Consequently, the Court determined that the State must create a supernumerary post if necessary to accommodate R-2 without blocking the promotional avenue of the Assistant Public Prosecutors

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

The Court confirmed the direction to regularize R-2 as a Special Public Prosecutor (including via a supernumerary post) with effect from 08.07.2022

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

R-2 shall not be disengaged but must be regularized only in the capacity of Special Public Prosecutor