Tenure Lapsed Long Ago: MP High Court Orders Fresh Appointment Process For Additional Public Prosecutor

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore bench has held that a departmental manual's provision capping the tenure of a Public Prosecutor or Government Pleader at three years does not mean every appointment is presumed to run the full period, and that an officer continuing to appear in court after the term in his own appointment letter has lapsed does so "without any authority."

Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke made the observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by Dinesh Pancholi, who had challenged the appointment of respondent no.6 as Additional Public Prosecutor in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, MHOW, district Indore.

The appointment, made through an order dated April 21, 2023, had specified that it would remain effective for one year or till respondent no.6 attained the age of 62, whichever was earlier. Since that period had already lapsed by the time the matter came up for hearing, the court at the outset noted that the challenge to the appointment order itself was "bad in law," the relief of quashment having been rendered infructuous.

Counsel for the petitioner, Jayesh Gurnani, pressed a further point: that respondent no.6, despite his term having ended, continued to appear before courts as Assistant Government Pleader without any legal sanction. He sought a writ directing the authorities to act against respondent no.6 and to appoint the petitioner, or someone else, to the post, which he said was lying vacant.

Government Advocate Tarun Pagare, appearing for the State, opposed this. He argued that the appointment was, in fact, for three years and not one, relying on Clause 20 of the Departmental Manual, which prescribes that the term of a Public Prosecutor, Government Pleader, Additional Public Prosecutor or Additional Government Pleader shall not exceed three years, excluding probation. He submitted that respondent no.6's continued appearance could not be faulted, and that the petition deserved dismissal. No one appeared for respondent no.6.

Rejecting the State's stand, the court held the Departmental Manual had not been shown to carry any statutory force, and that Clause 20, in any event, only fixed an outer limit. "Clause -20 of the said Manual specifically mentions that appointment... shall not exceed three years, which does not mean that any appointment shall be construed to be for a period of three years," the order stated, adding that it "could only mean that the appointment can be made for the period upto three years, that suits to the employer." Since the appointment letter of respondent no.6 had itself fixed the term at one year, the court held it "cannot be construed that it was for the period of three years in the light of aforesaid Manual."

On this reasoning, the bench recorded that it "thus finds appearance of respondent no. 6 in cases as Additional Government Pleader to be without any authority." It, however, chose not to dwell further on the consequences of this finding within the present petition, leaving it open to the authorities to examine the status of respondent no.6 following the expiry of his tenure.

Instead, the court directed the respondents to initiate a fresh appointment process to the post of Additional Government Pleader, clarifying that Pancholi would be at liberty to participate in it. The exercise, the order said, was to be completed within eight weeks. With these observations and directions, the writ petition was disposed of.

Case Title: Dinesh Pancholi vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: September 2, 2026

Bench: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke