Court holds that appointment term specified in the letter governs tenure; rejects claim that Departmental Manual clause implies fixed three-year term.
Indore, September 2, 2026: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant ruling concerning the tenure and authority of Additional Government Pleaders appointed by the State. In the writ petition filed by Mr. Dinesh Pancholi, the Court addressed the legality of the continued appearance of a respondent as Additional Government Pleader beyond the expiry of his stipulated tenure.
The petition challenged the appointment order dated April 21, 2023, which appointed the respondent as Additional Public Prosecutor in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, MHOW, Indore district. The appointment letter explicitly mentioned the term as one year or until the respondent attained 62 years of age, whichever was earlier.
The Court observed that since the term specified in the appointment letter had expired, any continued appearance of the respondent in the capacity of Additional Government Pleader was without legal authority. The State Government's defense, invoking Clause-20 of the Departmental Manual which limits tenure to not exceeding three years, was examined thoroughly. The Court clarified that this clause does not automatically confer a three-year tenure but only sets the maximum permissible period. The actual tenure is governed by the appointment letter issued in each case.
Rejecting the argument that the respondent's appointment was valid for three years, the Court emphasized the primacy of the appointment letter's terms over the Departmental Manual guidelines, especially since the Manual lacks statutory force and the appointment letter explicitly set a one-year term.
While the petition for quashing the appointment order was declared infructuous due to the expiry of the term, the Court directed the State Government to initiate a fresh appointment process within eight weeks. It also granted liberty to the petitioner to participate in the new selection process. The Court refrained from issuing any punitive directions against the respondent but underscored the importance of adherence to prescribed appointment terms.
This judgment reinforces the principle that appointments and their tenure must strictly comply with the terms specified in the appointment letter and that any authority exercised beyond the stipulated tenure lacks legal validity. It also provides clarity on the interpretation of service rules vis-a-vis appointment letters in government service appointments.
Bottom Line:
Appointment and tenure of Additional Public Prosecutor/Additional Government Pleader must adhere to the terms specified in the appointment letter. The appearance of a person as Additional Government Pleader beyond the authorized tenure is without legal authority.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226, Constitution of India, 1950; Clause-20 of Departmental Manual (non-statutory)
Dinesh Pancholi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Madhya Pradesh)(Indore) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2978366
