Gauhati High Court Seeks Records in Challenge to Prosecution Service Selection

The Gauhati High Court on Thursday issued notice in a writ petition challenging the selection process for the posts of Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor and Assistant Public Prosecutor in Assam, and directed the State to produce the complete records of the selection proceedings.

Justice Devashis Baruah heard the matter and directed issuance of notice to the respondents, requiring their appearance and response on May 5, 2026 at 2 PM.

Senior Advocate K.N. Choudhury, assisted by Advocate K. Kalita, appeared for the petitioners. Senior Government Advocate D. Nath accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 7, while the petitioners were directed to serve notice upon respondent Nos. 8 to 252 through speed post within seven days, with liberty to effect Dasti service through the Registry and file an affidavit of service.

Petitioners Allege Arbitrary and Non-Transparent Selection

The petitioners have challenged the manner in which the selection was conducted, contending that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which mandates transparency, fairness and non-arbitrariness.

Senior Counsel K.N. Choudhury submitted that, without prejudice to the petitioners’ right to challenge the Assam State Prosecution Service Rules, 2023, the selection process itself was contrary to settled law laid down by the Supreme Court. He argued that the advertisement dated January 2, 2024 failed to specify essential qualifications relating to candidates’ practice before criminal courts.

He further contended that the call letters required candidates to produce samples of pleadings drafted by them and judgments in criminal cases argued by them only before the Selection Board, thereby eliminating the possibility of maintaining contemporaneous records. According to the petitioners, this procedure makes it impossible to objectively assess candidates’ proficiency in criminal law.

The petitioners also questioned Rule 19(ii) of the 2023 Rules, submitting that it permits allocation of 100% marks for interview-based assessment, which is contrary to established Supreme Court jurisprudence. It was argued that the advertisement did not specify parameters for evaluating proficiency-cum-skill tests, rendering the process arbitrary.

State Opposes Petition, Cites Delay and Acquiescence

Opposing the petition, Advocate General Devajit Saikia submitted that the Rules were notified on December 7, 2023, and the advertisement was issued on January 2, 2024, both of which were within the knowledge of the petitioners. He argued that the petitioners, having participated in the selection process and remained unsuccessful, could not subsequently challenge it.

The Advocate General further contended that the petition suffered from gross delay and laches, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Madan Lal & Ors. vs State of Jammu & Kashmir (AIR 1995 SC 1088). He maintained that the selection was conducted by a panel comprising High Court judges over a period of more than six months, following which a provisional select list was published. A detailed affidavit supporting the process would be filed by the State, he added.

Allegations of Ineligible Candidates Included

In rejoinder, Senior Counsel K.N. Choudhury drew attention to Clause 8(iv) of the advertisement, which mandates a self-declaration that candidates must not have left legal practice or joined any other service. He referred to specific instances cited in paragraph 22 of the writ petition, alleging that some selected candidates had previously joined service as Members of Foreigners’ Tribunals after leaving advocacy.

He argued that inclusion of such candidates, if established, would vitiate the entire selection process. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai vs State of Bihar [(2019) 20 SCC 17], he submitted that participation in a selection process does not bar a candidate from challenging it later.

While not pressing for interim relief at this stage, the petitioners sought that any appointments made pursuant to the impugned select list be made subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.

Court’s Directions

Taking note of the submissions, the Court granted liberty to the respondents to file their affidavits-in-opposition on or before April 20, 2026, with rejoinders by the petitioners to be filed by April 30, 2026.

The Court directed the State to produce the complete records of the selection proceedings, particularly in relation to the allegations raised, on the next date of hearing.

Importantly, the Court clarified that any appointment made on the basis of the impugned select list shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, and selected candidates shall not claim equity if the selection is ultimately set aside.

The matter has been listed accordingly.

Also Read: Assam: Gauhati High Court Bar Association Boycotts Foundation Stone Ceremony, Announces Hunger Strike Over Proposed Relocation