The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of an Additional Public Prosecutor, holding that adverse remarks recorded years earlier cannot, by themselves, permanently disqualify a person from future appointments. The Court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the State Government's decision to reappoint the officer after considering the prescribed recommendations.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by advocate Amit Kumar Singh Raghuvanshi, who questioned the State Government's order dated September 21, 2023 appointing respondent No. 3 as an Additional Public Prosecutor/Additional Government Advocate for another three-year term.
The petitioner argued that the appointment violated the Madhya Pradesh Law Department Manual. He contended that respondent No. 3 had previously been removed from the same post in 2016 following an adverse inquiry and that those remarks were ignored while granting the appointment in 2021 and again in 2023.
The State and respondent No. 3 opposed the plea, submitting that the appointment was made after considering recommendations from the District Collector and the District & Sessions Judge and after evaluating her work and conduct.
Court's Observation
Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke noted that the competent authority had followed the prescribed process before issuing the appointment order.
Rejecting the petitioner's principal argument, the Court observed,
"Merely because adverse remarks were once recorded would not, by itself, permanently debar a person from future appointment, particularly when the competent authority has thereafter assessed the incumbent's performance and found her suitable."
The Court further reiterated that engagement of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors is primarily within the State Government's domain. It added that judicial interference is justified only where there is a statutory violation, mala fide action, or manifest arbitrariness.
Addressing the allegation that the appointment was made to satisfy the wishes of the then Law Minister, the bench observed that the claim was unsupported by convincing evidence and could not be accepted.
Decision
Finding no material to interfere with the appointment order dated September 21, 2023, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Before concluding, the Court noted that the respondent's tenure is scheduled to end in September 2026 and expressed the expectation that any future appointment or reappointment should strictly follow the Madhya Pradesh Law Department Manual to ensure transparency, fairness and objectivity in the appointment process.
Case Details:
Case Title: Amit Kumar Singh Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2769 of 2024
Judge: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
Decision Date: 7 July 2026
