ORDER

The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

"(1) That, impugned order dated 21-09-2023 (contained in Ann.P/1) passed under the authority of the respondent no.1 may kindly be quashed/set-aside.

(2) That, any other suitable writ, order or direction for doing justice in the matter may kindly be issued."

Short facts of the case are that the petitioner is an advocate enrolled with the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and has been practicing before the District Court, Guna. He was initially appointed as Additional Government Advocate/Additional Public Prosecutor by order dated 04.10.2014. Subsequently, his services were terminated by order dated 25.05.2016 on the basis of an adverse inquiry report. The petitioner challenged the termination in Writ Petition No.4060/2016, wherein this Court, by order dated 13.01.2017, removed the adverse remarks recorded against him. Respondent No.3 had also been subjected to disciplinary action and was removed from the post of Additional Government Advocate/Additional Public Prosecutor by order dated 25.05.2016 after her conduct was found unsatisfactory. The petitioner asserted that this fact was specifically mentioned in the Collector's panel/recommendation dated 15.01.2021. The petitioner was again appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor by order dated 09.05.2018. Thereafter, respondent No.3 was appointed by order dated 30.07.2021, resulting in the petitioner's displacement from the post. The petitioner challenged that appointment by filing Writ Petition No.17275/2021, which remained pending. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 21.09.2023, respondent No.3 was granted a fresh appointment for another term of three years under Rule 17(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Law Department Manual . Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 04.10.2023 requesting cancellation of the appointment. As no action was taken, the present writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the appointment order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Law Department Manual , as Rule 17(3) of the Manual does not authorize the State Government to grant a fresh appointment for a further period of three years in the manner adopted in the present case. Extension or reappointment can only be made in accordance with Rule 19 of the Manual, which mandates consultation with the District and Sessions Judge and consideration of the work and conduct of the incumbent after obtaining the necessary reports.

It was further submitted that respondent No.3 had earlier been removed from the same post by order dated 25.05.2016 after her conduct was found unsatisfactory. This adverse remark was specifically reflected in the Collector's recommendation dated 15.01.2021, but the same was ignored while granting appointment in 2021 and again while issuing the impugned order dated 21.09.2023.

Learned counsel also submitted that the respondents have incorrectly stated that no adverse remarks existed after 2016, whereas the recommendation dated 15.01.2021 itself contains the adverse remarks in Column No.6. Therefore, the subsequent appointment of respondent No.3 in 2021 and the present extension based upon such appointment are illegal.

It was further submitted that the respondents failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Law Department Manual and the departmental note-sheet itself demonstrates that the appointment of respondent No.3 was made merely to fulfil the wishes of the then Law Minister, rendering the decision arbitrary, mala fide and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 be quashed.

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State as well as the counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that the