New Delhi [India], August 22 : Advocate Vikas Verma on Friday submitted a formal representation to key government authorities including the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary (Home) of the Delhi Government, the Secretary of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), and the Director of Prosecution raising strong objections to a recent recruitment notice for Public Prosecutors.
The notice, issued by the Directorate of Prosecution, Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD), invites applications from retired prosecutors for contractual appointments. It has been widely circulated in print media and published on the Directorate's official website.
Verma's representation denounces the notification as unconstitutional, arbitrary, and discriminatory against young legal professionals. He contends that the move circumvents the established recruitment process through UPSC or other statutory bodies, effectively enabling a backdoor entry for retired officials.
Verma cited landmark Supreme Court rulings State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) and Renu v. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari (2014), which underscore the necessity of transparent and competitive recruitment for public posts. He argued that the number of positions advertised exceeds the sanctioned strength of Public Prosecutors, referencing a Delhi Government affidavit submitted in Court on its Own Motion v. State (NCT of Delhi) in July 2025.
The advocate alleged that the notification was issued with malafide intent, favouring a select group of retirees while sidelining thousands of qualified young advocates.
Verma emphasised that the recruitment process violates Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law, equal opportunity in public employment, and the right to practice a profession, respectively. He also invoked Article 51A(j), which calls on citizens to strive for excellence in professional life, an ideal he believes is undermined by non-merit-based appointments.
The notification, he argued, excludes SC, ST, and OBC candidates by limiting eligibility to retired prosecutors, thereby bypassing reservation policies and judicial mandates.
Verma criticised the Directorate for ignoring Delhi High Court directives to conduct recruitment through UPSC, opting instead for an interview-only process restricted to retirees--raising concerns about favouritism and lack of transparency. He noted that the Bar Council of Delhi and other stakeholders were not consulted, violating principles of natural justice. Hiring retired prosecutors who already receive pensions, he added, would impose unnecessary financial strain on the state, whereas regular recruitment would promote institutional continuity and efficiency.
Verma warned that allowing such appointments could set a precedent for arbitrary hiring across government departments, eroding fairness in public employment. He urged the government to align its actions with the Directive Principles of State Policy, referencing State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) to advocate for evolving affirmative action frameworks.
In conclusion, he demanded the immediate withdrawal of the notification, a formal inquiry into its issuance, and a halt to any appointments made under its provisions. He also called for future recruitments to be conducted exclusively through UPSC or other legally constituted bodies, ensuring merit-based and inclusive selection.