One Time Adverse Remarks Cannot Permanently Debar Lawyer From Future Appointment: MP High Court Upholds Law Officer's Selection
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the appointment of a government law officer, observing that a single instance of adverse remarks in the past cannot permanently disqualify the advocate from future appointments. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 265]The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed:"Merely because adverse remarks were once recorded would not, by itself, permanently debar a person...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the appointment of a government law officer, observing that a single instance of adverse remarks in the past cannot permanently disqualify the advocate from future appointments. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 265]
The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke 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."
Per the facts of the case, the petitioner was appointed as Additional Government Advocate/Additional Public Prosecutor on October 4, 2014, and his services were terminated on May 25, 2016, based on an adverse report. The petitioner had challenged the termination, wherein the adverse remarks against him were removed by the Court.
Another advocate (respondent no 3) was also removed from the said post, after her conduct was found unsatisfactory. The petitioner asserted that this fact was mentioned in the Collector's recommendation.
The petitioner and respondent no 3 were again appointed on May 9, 2018 and July 30, 2021. However, respondent no 3's appointment led to the petitioner's displacement from the post.
Subsequently, the petitioner challenged the other lawyer's appointment through a writ petition, which is still pending. Another order was passed on September 21, 2023, granting a fresh appointment to respondent no 3 for another term of 3 years under Rule 17(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Law Department Manual, which governs the said appointments.
Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation on October 4, 2023, requesting cancellation of Respondent no. 3's appointment, but no action was taken. Thus, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking the quashment of the respondent 3's appointment order.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned appointment order was wholly illegal and contrary to the Manual. The counsel argued that Rule 17(3) of the Manual does not authorise the State Government to grant a fresh appointment for a further period of three years. It was claimed that the appointment or extension can be made only under Rule 19 of the Manual, which mandates consultation with the District and Sessions Judge.
The counsel further argued that the respondent no 3 was removed from the same post after her conduct was found unsatisfactory, which was specifically recorded in the Collector's recommendation, but was ignored while granting her appointment again in 2021.
The counsel claimed that the respondents failed to follow the mandatory provisions under the Manual. Referring to the departmental note sheet, it was claimed that respondent no 3 was appointed only to fulfil the wishes of the then Law Minister.
The counsel for the State argued that the appointment of respondent no 3 was made following the prescribed procedure, considering the Collector's recommendation and upon consultation with the District and Sessions Judge. The State argued that the said appointment falls within the ambit of the State Government and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Regarding the recording of adverse remarks against respondent no 3, the court noted:
"The petitioner's principal contention rests upon the adverse remarks recorded against respondent No.3 in the year 2016. However, it appears that the said remarks were not treated by the competent authority as a continuing disqualification. On the contrary, respondent No.3 was subsequently appointed in the year 2021, discharged her duties during the tenure, and was hereafter recommended by the competent authorities for further appointment.
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 the engagement of the Public Prosecutor/Additional Public Prosecutor is a professional engagement and the choice primarily lies within the domain of the State Government. It further emphasised that unless the appointment is proved to be vitiated by "statutory violation, mala fides or manifest arbitrariness", the court does not substitute its opinion.
Thus, the bench emphasized
"It is expected that, while making any fresh appointment or reappointment thereafter, the State Government shall duly take into consideration the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Law Department Manual and ensure that the procedure prescribed therein is followed in its true letter and spirit, so as to maintain transparency, fairness and objectivity in the process of appointment".
"The allegations that the appointment was made merely to satisfy the wishes of the then Law Minister are bald and unsupported by any cogent material. Such allegations cannot be accepted in the absence of convincing evidence," the court said.
Regarding allegations that respondent no 3 was appointed to satisfy the then Law Minister, the court noted that such allegations were not supported by any cogent material and therefore should be rejected.
Accordingly, the court found no ground for interference and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Singh Raghuvanshi v State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 265
For Petitioner: Advocate Rishikesh Bohare
For State: Advocate Rohit Shrivastava
For Respondent no 3: Advocate Vikram Singh