Past adverse remarks do not act as permanent disqualification for professional engagement of Public Prosecutors.

The petitioner, an advocate, challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) / Additional Government Advocate (AGA) vide order dated 21-09-2023.

Both parties had previously served in these roles and faced past terminations/disciplinary issues; specifically, Respondent No. 3 was removed in 2016 for unsatisfactory conduct, a fact noted in a 2021 recommendation.

Despite this, Respondent No. 3 was reappointed in 2021 and granted a further three-year term in 2023.

The petitioner alleged that the appointment bypassed Rule 19 of the M.P. Law Department Manual, which requires consultation with the District and Sessions Judge, and was made solely at the behest of the then Law Minister.

1. Whether the appointment of Respondent No. 3 was vitiated by procedural irregularities or failure to consider past adverse remarks under the Madhya Pradesh Law Department Manual.

2. Whether the engagement of a Public Prosecutor by the State Government is subject to judicial review on grounds of arbitrariness or mala fides.

The court primarily applied Rules 17(3) and 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Law Department Manual regarding the appointment and extension of Government Advocates.

It relied on the established principle that the engagement of a Public Prosecutor is a professional contract and a prerogative of the State, provided it is not vitiated by statutory violations, manifest arbitrariness, or mala fides.

It further applied the principle that past adverse remarks do not constitute a permanent disqualification if the competent authority subsequently finds the candidate suitable based on intervening performance.

The Court observed that the competent authority had indeed considered the recommendations of the District Collector and the District & Sessions Judge before issuing the impugned order.

Addressing the petitioner's claim regarding the 2016 adverse remarks, the Court reasoned that such remarks were not a "continuing disqualification," as Respondent No. 3 had since completed a subsequent tenure satisfactorily.

The Court found no evidence of statutory violation, noting that the State followed the prescribed procedure and assessed suitability as a professional engagement.

Regarding the allegations of political influence (the Law Minister's "wishes"), the Court dismissed them as "bald and unsupported" due to a lack of cogent evidence.

The Court answered that the State’s choice of counsel is a professional prerogative and the petitioner failed to prove manifest arbitrariness.

The Court directed the State to ensure that future appointments following the expiry of the current term in September 2026 strictly adhere to the transparency and objectivity standards of the M.P. Law Department Manual.