Persons with disabilities cannot claim reservation in contractual engagement of government lawyers, Madras High Court rules

The appellant challenged Notification No. 1 of 2024 dated 4 July 2024, issued under Rule 5(3) of the Law Officers of the High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017, inviting applications for engagement as Additional Advocate General, Special Government Pleader, Additional Government Pleader, or Government Advocate.

The notification stipulated that the engagement would be contractual, terminable on notice, and would not give rise to any claim for regularisation.

The appellant, a person with disability, contended that he ought to be accommodated as a Government lawyer under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, while asserting that he was not claiming reservation for such engagement.

The learned Single Judge dismissed W.P. No. 8428 of 2025 on 27 November 2025. The appellant preferred the present writ appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent.

The Court considered Section 34(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which requires the appropriate Government to reserve not less than four per cent of vacancies in the cadre strength of each group of posts for persons with benchmark disabilities.

It applied the distinction between appointment to Government service under service rules and contractual engagement of advocates to represent the Government in litigation.

The Court also considered Rule 5(3) of the Law Officers of the High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017, and the terms of Notification No. 1 of 2024, under which Government lawyers are engaged contractually and may be removed in accordance with the specified conditions.

Relying on Vikas Singh v. Union Public Service Commission, (2021) 5 SCC 370, the Court recognised the State’s positive obligation of reasonable accommodation to facilitate the effective participation of persons with disabilities, while holding that such principle could not be converted into an indirect claim for reservation that interferes with the Government’s choice of legal representation.

The Court held that the engagement of Government lawyers is not an appointment to a cadre or post in Government service but a contractual arrangement between the Government, as litigant, and the advocate engaged to conduct its cases.

Since Section 34(1) concerns reservation in vacancies in the cadre strength of Government establishments, it could not be invoked to compel reservation in contractual engagements of law officers.

The appellant’s submission that he did not seek reservation, but nevertheless had to be accommodated as a Government lawyer under the Disabilities Act, was found to be internally contradictory and amounted to an indirect reservation claim.

The Court further reasoned that the Government must retain discretion to select advocates, including Senior Counsel, based on the nature, complexity, and sensitivity of cases; judicial review could not be used to compel the Government to engage a particular lawyer.

Nevertheless, the notification did not prevent persons with disabilities from applying, and the appellant remained free to submit an application when a notification was issued.

The Court upheld the Single Judge’s order dismissing W.P. No. 8428 of 2025 and rejected the appellant’s claim for reservation or compulsory accommodation in the contractual engagement of Government lawyers under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The Court clarified that the appellant could apply for engagement pursuant to any future notification, subject to the applicable eligibility requirements.

No costs were awarded, and C.M.P. No. 19163 of 2026 was closed.