Court Finds No Statutory Violations or Mala Fides in State's Appointment Process
In a significant judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the appointment of an Additional Public Prosecutor in the face of challenges based on past adverse remarks. The court, presided over by Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, delivered its verdict on July 7, 2026, in the case of Amit Kumar Singh Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, dismissing a writ petition seeking the annulment of an appointment order dated September 21, 2023.
The petitioner, Amit Kumar Singh Raghuvanshi, an advocate practicing at the District Court, Guna, had contested the appointment of respondent No.3 as an Additional Public Prosecutor, arguing that the appointment was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Law Department Manual. He highlighted the adverse remarks recorded against respondent No.3 in 2016, which led to her removal from the position at that time.
However, the court noted that these adverse remarks were not deemed a continuing disqualification by the competent authority. Justice Phadke emphasized that the competent authority assessed the respondent's work and conduct before recommending her for another term, thus validating the appointment process. The court stated that unless an appointment is marred by statutory violations, mala fides, or manifest arbitrariness, it would not interfere with the State's prerogative under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Furthermore, allegations that the appointment was influenced by political motives, specifically to satisfy the then Law Minister, were dismissed by the court for lack of evidence. The court underscored that such bald allegations, without cogent material, cannot be upheld.
The judgment also addressed contentions regarding the violation of Rule 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Law Department Manual. The court affirmed that the competent authority followed the prescribed procedure, considering recommendations from the District Collector and the District & Sessions Judge. Justice Phadke urged the State Government to adhere strictly to the provisions of the Manual in future appointments to ensure transparency and fairness.
In conclusion, the court found no grounds for interference with the impugned order dated September 21, 2023, and dismissed the writ petition. However, the court advised the State Government to ensure compliance with the procedural norms during any fresh appointments post-September 2026, when the current tenure of respondent No.3 expires.
Bottom line:-
Appointment of an Additional Public Prosecutor/Additional Government Advocate is within the prerogative of the State Government, and unless vitiated by statutory violation, mala fides, or manifest arbitrariness, the Court would not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Madhya Pradesh Law Department Manual, Rule 17(3), Rule 19
