Kerala High Court Upholds 60 Years Age Bar On Reappointment Of Government Law Officers

Justice Viju Abraham dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor in the Additional District and Sessions Court-II, Pathanamthitta, challenging the State Government's refusal to consider his request for reappointment by granting age relaxation.

The petitioner had been appointed in 2023 for a period of three years or until he attained the age of 60 years, whichever occurred earlier. After turning 60 on May 20, 2026, he sought extension or reappointment, contending that the age restriction under the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Services) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978, should not apply to him. The Government rejected the request on the ground that he had crossed the prescribed age limit, prompting the writ petition.

The petitioner also argued that other Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors in Pathanamthitta had been permitted to continue in office and claimed that he had been subjected to discriminatory treatment. He relied on earlier decisions of the High Court, including Joseph P.T. (Advocate) v. State of Kerala[2026 KHC Online 195], State of Kerala v. P.P. Biju [2022 (2) KHC 717], and the High Court's suo motu proceedings concerning appointments of Public Prosecutors.

The State submitted that the tenure of the petitioner automatically came to an end upon attaining 60 years of age, in accordance with the terms of his appointment. It clarified that the tenure of other Government Pleaders had only been extended until fresh appointments were made or until they themselves reached the age of 60 years. The Government also informed the Court that additional charge had already been entrusted to another Public Prosecutor, ensuring uninterrupted functioning of the court.

The Court observed that the petitioner had accepted the appointment in 2023 with the explicit condition that his tenure would cease on attaining 60 years of age. It noted that having accepted the appointment without objection, he could not challenge the age condition only after reaching the stipulated age.

The Court further found no merit in the allegation of discrimination, noting that the Government Orders produced by the petitioner showed that the continuance granted to other Government Pleaders was only until they attained 60 years of age.

The Court distinguished the precedents relied upon by the petitioner. It held that the suo motu judgment concerning appointments of Public Prosecutors dealt with the procedure under Section 24(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and did not dilute the age restriction applicable to Government Law Officers.

It further noted that P.P. Biju concerned payment of remuneration to a Government Pleader who had continued to discharge duties in the absence of any replacement or alternate arrangement, a factual situation that did not arise in the present case because the petitioner's assignment had already been terminated and an alternative arrangement had been made.

The Court noted that the Government had considered and rejected the petitioner's request for reappointment after he crossed the age of 60 years and hence the Court declined to interfere with the impugned communication and dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Anil Kumar P.R v State of Kerala and Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 411

Case No: WP(C) 21622/ 2026

Counsel for Petitioner: S. Muhammed Haneeff, M.H. Asif Ali, Ashik Ali M.H, Aravind T Ramesh, Vismaya Jayaraj, Surjith T.M

Counsel for Respondents: Sachin Ramesh