MP High Court Directs Fresh Appointment For Additional Public Prosecutor In Mhow Sessions Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State Government to initiate the process for fresh appointment of an Additional Public Prosecutor in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge in Mhow, Indore. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 367]

In doing so the court observed that the State's reliance on the departmental manual stating that appointment of Public Prosecutor/Government Pleader or Additional Public Prosecutor/Additional Government Pleader "shall not exceed three years" does not mean that the appointment shall be construed to be for a period of three years; it means that the appointment can be made for a period "upto three years". 

The petitioner had challenged an order dated April 21, 2023 passed by respondent no. 2 Additional Secretary of the Law and Legislative Affairs Department appointing respondent no. 6 as Additional Public Prosecutor in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, MHOW, district Indore. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even after the end of the term of appointment of respondent no. 6, he is appearing as Assistant Government Pleader without any authority. Therefore, the petition sought directions against the respondents to initiate action against respondent no. 6. It also appointment fresh appointment of an Assistant Government Pleader, claiming that the post is vacant. 

The counsel for the State argued that the appointment of respondent no. 6 was not for a term of one year but rather three years. Referring to clause 20 of the Departmental Manual, it was argued that it should not exceed three years, excluding the period of probation. 

The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke found that the impugned order was effective for only a period of one year or till the said candidate attains the age of 62 years which is earlier. Therefore, the court held as the period of 1 year had expired, the challenge to the order is bad in law. On the reliance on Departmental Manual the court further said :

"With regard to the contention of respondents that the appointment of respondent no. 6 in term of Clause -20 of Departmental Manual was for three years therefore his appearance before the courts as Additional Government Pleader cannot be faulted with is concerned, firstly it is not brought to the knowledge of this court whether the said Departmental Manual has any statutory force and secondly Clause -20 of the said Manual specifically mentions that appointment of Public Prosecutor/Government Pleader or Additional Public Prosecutor/Additional Government Pleader shall not exceed three years, which does not mean that any appointment shall be construed to be for a period of three years.
It could only mean that the appointment can be made for the period upto three years, that suits to the employer and as the very period in the appointment letter of respondent no. 6 was mentioned as one year, it cannot be construed that it was for the period of three years in the light of aforesaid Manual, that on both the counts the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent -State has no force". 

The court thus found that the appearance of respondent no. 6 in cases as Additional Government Pleader to be without any authority. 

However, rather than dwelling on the matter, the bench deemed it expedient to direct the state to issue process for a fresh appointment within 8 weeks, and the petitioner shall be at liberty to participate said in the fresh process. 

The court left it open to the  respondents to consider the status of respondent no. 6 after expiry of his tenure as Additional Government Pleader. 

The plea was disposed of. 

Case Title: Dinesh Pancholi v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-7210-2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 367

For Petitioner: Advocate Jayesh Gurnani 

For State: Government Advocate Tarum Pagare

Click here to read/download the Order