MP High Court: Additional Public Prosecutor's Appearance After One-Year Term Expiry Is Without Authority

MP High Court: Additional Public Prosecutor's Appearance After One-Year Term Expiry Is Without Authority

Indore, September 2, 2026 – The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that an Additional Public Prosecutor appointed for a one-year term cannot continue appearing after its expiry, holding such appearance to be without legal authority. The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke directed the state government to initiate a fresh appointment process within eight weeks.

The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Dinesh Pancholi challenging the appointment of respondent no. 6 as Additional Public Prosecutor in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, MHOW, Indore, on April 21, 2023. The appointment order specified a tenure of one year or until the appointee attained the age of 62 years, whichever was earlier. Since that period had already expired, the court found the challenge to the appointment itself to be infructuous.

However, the petitioner argued that despite the expiry of his term, respondent no. 6 continued to appear as an Assistant Government Pleader without any authority, and sought directions for action against him and for a fresh appointment.

The state opposed this, contending that the appointment was actually for three years under Clause 20 of the Departmental Manual, which states that the term of a Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor shall not exceed three years, excluding probation. The state argued that the appointment should therefore be presumed to be for three years.

Rejecting this argument, the court noted that the Departmental Manual had not been shown to have any statutory force. Moreover, the court clarified that Clause 20 only means that appointments can be made for up to three years, not that every appointment must be for three years. Since the appointment letter clearly mentioned a one-year term, it could not be construed as a three-year appointment.

The court observed: "It could only mean that the appointment can be made for the period upto three years, that suits to the employer and as the very period in the appointment letter of respondent no. 6 was mentioned as one year, it cannot be construed that it was for the period of three years in the light of aforesaid Manual."

Consequently, the court found that "the appearance of respondent no. 6 in cases as Additional Government Pleader to be without any authority ."

While declining to adjudicate further on the status of respondent no. 6, the court left it open to the state to consider his position after the expiry of his tenure. The court directed the respondents to initiate a fresh appointment process for the post and permitted the petitioner to participate in it.

The petition was disposed of with the direction that the fresh appointment process be completed within eight weeks. The case is cited as Dinesh Pancholi vs State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-7210-2025 .