V. Muthupandi, vs The Secretary to Government,

Court
Madras High Court

2026:MHC:3189
WA No. 2214 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
WA No. 2214 of 2026
AND
CMP NO. 19163 OF 2026
V. Muthupandi,
S/o.Late Velladurai,
No.9/4, Manickavasagar Street,
East Tambaram,
Chennai -600059.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government,
Public Department,
Secretariat, Fort St George,
Chennai -600009.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Law Department, Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai -600009.
..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the
order passed by the Honble Court dated 27.11.2025 in WP.No.8428 of 2025 .
For Appellant(s): Mr.G.Murugendran
For Respondent(s): Dr.R.Gouri, Government Counsel for R1 & R2
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2026 07:43:56 pm )

2026:MHC:3189
WA No. 2214 of 2026
Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
Section 34(1) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
contemplates that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every
Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of
vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with
persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be
reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses under sub-
section (1) to Section 34.
2. In the present case, though the learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that the appellant is not insisting for reservation for differently
abled persons in the engagement of government lawyers by the Government,
an indirect attempt has been made to secure reservation under Section 34 of
the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the one hand would submit that
the appellant is not seeking reservation for appointment to the post of
Government lawyers, but on the other hand he says that under the Act he
must be accommodated as government lawyer and the said statements are
contradictory to each other. He would further submit that the object of the Act
is to be taken into consideration.
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2026 07:43:56 pm )

2026:MHC:3189
WA No. 2214 of 2026
3. No doubt, the object is laudable and widely being implemented in our
nation currently. As far as appointments are concerned, even some private
sector organisations are applying the Act by providing appointment to
differently abled persons. In the present case, Notification No.1 of 2024 dated
04.07.2024 is under challenge. The said notification invited applications under
Rule 5(3) of the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at
Madurai Appointment Rules, 2017. Clause (3) of the notification reads as
under:
“3. The applicants shall send or submit their application
(Application form can be downloaded from the website
http://www.tn.gov.in under “Announcements”) through
registered post or in person to the Secretary to Government,
Public Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 by
22.07.2024 before 5.45 p.m. The envelope should be
superscribed as “Application for the post of Additional
Advocate General / Special Government Pleader / Additional
Government Pleader / Government Advocate (Civil Side /
Criminal Side / Taxes) as applicable”. The application received
after the due date / time will be summarily rejected.”
Clause 5 ‘Terms and Conditions’ reads as under:
“5. Other terms and Conditions:
(a) the appointment shall be purely on contractual basis
and shall be for such term as may be determined by the
Government. The Government law officers selected for
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2026 07:43:56 pm )

2026:MHC:3189
WA No. 2214 of 2026
appointment will be paid retainer fee and other fees as per
Rules in force;
(b) the appointment can be terminated and the
Government law officer is liable to be removed from the office
at any time without assigning any reason, by giving one month
notice or on payment of one month retainer fee in lieu of such
notice;
(c) the applicant shall make no claim towards
regularization of such appointment;
(d) Incomplete application shall not be entertained in any
case and the right to reject the same stands reserved;
(e) if the information furnished by the applicant is found
to be false at any stage, the application shall stand rejected
forthwith and if found at later stage, his appointment will be
terminated forthwith;
(f) this advertisement, the process and the appointment
of the applicant, (if any) are governed by the provisions of the
Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai
(Appointment) Rules, 2017 and related provisions.”
4. As per the Rules as well as the notification, it is only a contract
between the Government and the lawyers to represent the case of the
Government. The relationship between a lawyer and a litigant is privileged.
Lawyers represent the cases of their clients before the Court of law / judicial
forum. It is not an appointment. It is an engagement / contract based on
which confidentiality is maintained between the parties. The Government
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2026 07:43:56 pm )

2026:MHC:3189
WA No. 2214 of 2026
lawyers represent the cases of the Government. The Government being a
larger litigant is at liberty to withdraw the Vakalat, engage any lawyer or Senior
Counsel of their choice depending on the administrative decision. Therefore,
appointment of law officers by the Government cannot be construed as
appointment under the Service Rules. The required number of lawyers are
engaged on contract basis by the Government on need basis. Senior
Counsels are engaged considering the complex nature of the issues or in
sensitive matters. Those are all the prerogative of the Government in its
capacity as a litigant, which cannot be disputed.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Singh -vs- Union
Public Service Commission (2021) 5 SCC 370 made the following
observations:
44. The principle of reasonable accommodation
captures the positive obligation of the State and private
parties to provide additional support to persons with
disabilities to facilitate their full and effective participation in
society. The concept of reasonable accommodation is
developed in section (H) below. For the present, suffice it to
say that, for a person with disability, the constitutionally
guaranteed fundamental rights to equality, the six freedoms
and the right to life under  Article 21  will ring hollow if they are
not given this additional support that helps make these rights
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2026 07:43:56 pm )

2026:MHC:3189
WA No. 2214 of 2026
real and meaningful for them. Reasonable accommodation is
the instrumentality – are an obligation as a society – to enable
the disabled to enjoy the constitutional guarantee of equality
and non- discrimination. In this context, it would be apposite
to remember Justice R M Lodha’s (as he then was)
observation in  Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v.
Union of India  12, where he stated:
“ 9…In the matters of providing relief to those
who are differently abled, the approach and
attitude of the executive must be liberal and
relief oriented and not obstructive or
lethargic…” (2018) 2 SCC 397
6. However, reservation as claimed by the appellant in an indirect
manner cannot be approved by this Court and if such reservation is provided,
the right of the litigant will be taken away. Right to represent the case through
lawyers by the litigant is a fundamental right and Government being a litigant,
has got every right to engage lawyers of their choice. The concept of
appointment into Government service cannot be equated with engagement of
a lawyer by the Government to represent the Government cases. Terms and
conditions of appointment in Government departments and service conditions
are distinct and different than that of the engagement of a lawyer to represent
Government cases, which is on contractual basis.
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2026 07:43:56 pm )

2026:MHC:3189
WA No. 2214 of 2026
7. The Government has not restricted any differently abled person from
submitting their application for engagement as a government lawyer. In the
absence of any prohibition, the appellant herein cannot claim any reservation
in an indirect manner to secure engagement as a government lawyer. Any
person eligible as per the notification, is entitled to submit his application and it
is the prerogative of the Government to engage lawyers to represent the
Government cases before the Courts / Tribunals / Judicial Forums. The High
Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review cannot issue a direction to
the litigant to engage a particular lawyer by making certain reservation.
Engagement of a lawyer is purely the discretion of a litigant and in order to
maintain transparency in the appointment of government lawyers, rules and
guidelines are issued. Service law applicable to Government employees
cannot be applied for engagement of government lawyers. Therefore, any
indirect form of claiming reservation under Rule 34 of the Disabilities Act is not
entertainable.
8. However, there is no impediment for the appellant to submit his
application whenever a notification is issued. Learned single Judge also
elaborately considered the scope of grant of reservation under the Disabilities
Act and dismissed the writ petition. This Court does not find any infirmity in
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2026 07:43:56 pm )

2026:MHC:3189
WA No. 2214 of 2026
the writ order impugned. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.)
28-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
KST
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2026 07:43:56 pm )

2026:MHC:3189
WA No. 2214 of 2026
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Public Department,
Secretariat, Fort St George,
Chennai -600009.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Law Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai -600009.
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2026 07:43:56 pm )

2026:MHC:3189
WA No. 2214 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR J.
KST
WA No. 2214 of 2026
AND
CMP NO. 19163 OF 2026
28-07-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2026 07:43:56 pm )