Disability Reservation Can't Be Claimed For Engagement As Govt Lawyer: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has held that the reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in Government establishment under Section 34 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act does not extend to engagement of Government lawyers as such engagement is contractual and cannot be equated with appointment to Government service. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 378]The Division Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam...
The Madras High Court has held that the reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in Government establishment under Section 34 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act does not extend to engagement of Government lawyers as such engagement is contractual and cannot be equated with appointment to Government service. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 378]
The Division Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar said:
“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".
The bench noted that the Government, being a litigant, has the right to engage lawyers of its choice. The Court held that directing reservation in the engagement of Government lawyers would affect the right of the litigant to choose its counsel.
“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,” the Court said.
The Court noted that the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai Appointment Rules, 2017, as well as the notification, dated July 4, 2024, show that the engagement of Government lawyers was contractual in nature.
“It is not an appointment. It is an engagement / contract based on which confidentiality is maintained between the parties,” the Court said.
The Court held that the appointment of law officers by the Government cannot be construed as appointment under the Service Rules, as lawyers are engaged on a contractual basis depending on the Government's requirements.
The Bench observed that the relationship between a lawyer and a litigant is a privileged one, and the Government, being a larger litigant, is at liberty to withdraw the Vakalat, engage any lawyer of their choice depending on the administrative decision.
“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,” the Court held.
The Court noted that the Government had not restricted persons with disabilities from submitting applications for engagement as Government lawyers.
“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 Bench said.
The court was hearing an appeal against a Single Judge's order, which had dismissed a plea concerning reservation for persons with disabilities in engagement of Government lawyers under Section 34 (1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
The provision contemplates reservation of not less than 4% of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts in Government establishments for persons with benchmark disabilities.
The appellant insisted that he was not seeking reservation for appointment to the post of Government lawyer, while also arguing that he must be accommodated as a government lawyer under the Act. The Division Bench found these contentions to be contradictory and appellant's case to be an “indirect attempt” to secure reservation.
The Bench concluded that the statutory reservation applicable to vacancies in Government establishments could not be extended to the contractual engagement of lawyers representing the Government, and dismissed the writ appeal.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Murugendran
Counsel for Respondent: Dr. R. Gouri, Government Counsel
Case: V. Muthupandi v Secretary to Government, Public Department & another,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 378
Case No: WA No. 2214 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 19163 OF 2026