[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Prasanth U vs Kerala State Prosecution Service on 4 December, 2025

W.A.No.818 of 2023


                               : 1 :-
                                              2025:KER:93010


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                              &

         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA,

                             1947

                      WA NO. 818 OF 2023

      (AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2023        IN
WP(C) NO.5279 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
APPELLANT:

            PRASANTH U.,
            AGED 31 YEARS
            UNDODIYIL HOUSE, PERUVAYAL P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN
            - 673008


            BY ADVS.
            SMT.R.ANUPAMA
            SHRI. SAYED MANSOOR BAFAKHY THANGAL




RESPONDENTS:

     1      KERALA STATE PROSECUTION SERVICE,
            DIRECTORATE OF PROSECUTION, KOMBARA,
            KACHERIPADY, KOCHI-18

     2      KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PSC OFFICE,
            PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004

     3      THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
            PSC OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
            695004
 W.A.No.818 of 2023


                                    : 2 :-
                                                    2025:KER:93010

     4      DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
            SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

     5      THE STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
            SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 682031

            ADV.SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE(GP) R1,R4,&R5
            BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

         THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.12.2025,          THE   COURT   ON   4.12.2025   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING
 W.A.No.818 of 2023


                                      : 3 :-
                                                           2025:KER:93010

            SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
                                &
                   P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
               -------------------------------------
                     W.A. No. 818 of 2023
                ---------------------------------
           Dated this the 4th day of December 2025

                           JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J

This intra court appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.

(C)No.5279 of 2023 challenging the judgment dated 17.3.2023

dismissing his writ petition.

2. W.P.(C) No.5279/2023 has been filed by the appellant

seeking the following reliefs:

"(A) issue a writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writ or an

order quashing Rule 7 of Exhibit P4 G.O.issued by the 4 th

respondent.

(B) issue a writ of mandamus, or other appropriate writ or

order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to as per

Exhibit P1 notification, the petitioner who has completed 3

years and 8 months of practice on the date of Exhibit P1

notification is eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Public

Prosecutor Grade II."

3. The appellant is a holder of Law Degree from the

University of Calicut and he enrolled as an advocate with the

Bar Council of Kerala on 13.4.2019. On 31.12.2022, the third

: 4 :-

2025:KER:93010

respondent issued Ext.P1 notification, inviting applications to

the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II. One of the

qualifications prescribed was that the applicant must be a

member of the Bar and must have had not less than three

years of active practice in Criminal Courts, as on 1st January

2022. The appellant had completed active practice of 3 years

8 months and 16 days on the date of the notification. But, he

was ineligible to apply for the above post since the cut off

date fixed to calculate the completion of 3 years practice was

1.1.2022. The Notification for the post of Assistant Public

Prosecutor Grade II was previously issued in the year 2017

and in all probabilities, the next notification will be issued only

after 5 years, resulting in the appellant becoming again

ineligible due to the age limit. The afore criteria fixed in

Ext.P1 notification is on the basis of Ext.P4 Government Order

notifying special rules for the post of Director of Prosecution,

Deputy Director of Prosecution and Senior Assistant Public

Prosecutor, Assistant Public Prosecutor (Senior Grade),

Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade I and Assistant Public

Prosecutor Grade II, wherein Rule 7 had prescribed the criteria

regarding cut off date for fixing the years of practice.

: 5 :-

2025:KER:93010

According to the appellant, the said rule is highly arbitrary and

irrational and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India. It is hence, challenging Rule 7 of Ext.P4,

the appellant filed the writ petition. .

4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials

on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition

5. Heard Adv.Sayed Mansoor Bafakhy Thangal, the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant, Adv.P.C.Sasidharan, the

learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and

Adv.Sunilkumar Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader

appearing for respondents 1,4 and 5.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that

even though the appellant has completed 3 years of practice

on the date of application, merely because of the fact that an

arbitrary cut off date has been fixed, he could not apply to the

post of Public Prosecutor. He submitted that Ext.P1 notification

was issued on 31.12.2022, the last day of the year, by fixing

the first day of the year as the cut off date, thereby affecting

the future of a number of candidates alike to the appellant.

He argued that Ext.P1 notification and Rule 7 of Ext.P4 are

violative of Article 14, since they contemplate differential

: 6 :-

2025:KER:93010

treatment and discrimination amongst the candidates. He

further contended that it also violates Article 16 of the

Constitution, since equality of opportunity for all citizens in

matters relating to employment/appointment to the office

under the State is denied.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents supported the impugned judgment and contended

that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. They

argued that merely because a cut off date is prescribed for

ascertaining the years of actual practice, that by itself will not

make the rule arbitrary. They further submitted that, there

are no valid grounds raised in the writ petition to set aside

Rule 7 of Ext.P4 and the grounds raised are very vague,

without any substance.

8. The appellant is challenging Rule 7 of Ext.P4

Government order, fixing the cut off date for determining the

prescribed years of practice. Rule 7 reads as follows:

"7. Qualification :- For appointment to Category 5, a candidate

shall possess the following qualifications, namely :-

(i) a Degree in Law conferred or recognized by the

Universities in Kerala ; and

(ii) must be a member of the Bar and must have

: 7 :-

2025:KER:93010

had not less than three years of active practice in

Criminal Courts on the first day of January of the year

in which applications are invited."

As per Rule 7, one of the qualification prescribed is that the

candidate must have had not less than 3 years of practice in

Criminal Courts on the first day of January of the year in which

the applications are invited. The question to the considered is

whether the prescription of the said cut off date is arbitrary

and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Dr.Ami Lal Bhat v.

State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 SC 2964) had occasion to

consider a similar issue, wherein the first day of January was

fixed as a cut off date for determining the age. In the said

decision, the Apex Court held that the fixation of a cut off

date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed

for a post is not per se, arbitrary and the same is in the

discretion of the rule making authority or the employer. The

Apex Court also held that a cut off date cannot be fixed with

any mathematical precision and in such a manner as would

avoid hardship in all conceivable cases. The court observed

that as soon as a cut off date is fixed, there will be some

persons who fall on the right side of the cut off date and some

: 8 :-

2025:KER:93010

persons who will fall under the wrong side of the cut off date

and that cannot by itself make the cut off date per se,

arbitrary, unless the cut off date is so wide off the mark, as to

make it wholly unreasonable. It was further held that the

suitability of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed to

depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date and it is always

desirable that such a cut off date should be with reference to a

fixed date, so that there is a certainty in the issue. If so, in

the light of the afore dictum and in the absence of any

material to show that the decision of the rule making authority

is so capricious or whimsical or wholly unreasonable, it cannot

be found that the cut off date fixed is arbitrary or violative of

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.