Plea In Supreme Court Seeks PwD Reservation In Government Pleader Post

The Supreme Court recently issued notice on a petition seeking reservation for the post of Additional Public Prosecutor and Additional Government Pleader in terms of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order.Briefly put, the petitioner is a practicing advocate with 19 years of experience. She, being a person with benchmark disability in terms of the RPwD Act, applied for the post of District Govt Pleader/Additional Public Prosecutor under the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1978. She also made a representation in 2022, however, the same was rejected on the ground that the posts were not cadre posts and therefore Section 34 of the RPwD Act was inapplicable.For context, Section 34 of the RPwD Act mandates that reservation of 4% of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength of each group of posts should be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities.Initially, when the petitioner approached the Kerala High Court, she argued before a Single Bench that the post of Public Prosecutor is a public employment made by the State and therefore reservation must be given to persons with benchmark disabilities as per Section 34.On the other hand, the government submitted that Section 34 envisages reservation based on vacancies in the cadre strength and that there was no cadre strength for Public Prosecutors for giving reservations. It was further argued that the appointment of an advocate is at the discretion of the client, and in the case of Public Prosecutors, the government is the client. It was thus submitted that the government has the discretion to select the best advocate to serve as Public Prosecutor and defend its case.The Single Bench, referring to State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association (1994), observed that the appointment and termination of Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors is at the pleasure of the Government, and Section 34 was not applicable. It also stated that no one has an inherent right to claim appointment as Government Pleader or Public Prosecutor. The writ petition was dismissed with the following observation,"the appointment of the Advocates as Government Pleader or Public Prosecutor is fiat of the Government which is a client before the Court and the Government is entitled to appoint the best of the Advocates as Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor to defend its cases. No one has the right to be appointed as Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor."In an intra-Court appeal, a Division Bench upheld the Single Bench's order and held that Section 34 did not apply to the posts in question as they were not permanent. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.She argues that Section 34 does not make a distinction between permanent, temporary and contractual posts. As such, by observing that Section 34 applies only to permanent posts, the High Court has introduced a distinction that the statute does not recognize."The Division Bench's reasoning effectively nullifies the clear legislative mandate to ensure representation of persons with benchmark disabilities in all government establishments, irrespective of the nature or tenure of the posts. The impugned order ignores the statutory objective of the RPwD Act, treats appointments made by the Government on merit for fixed terms as beyond the scope of the Act, and frustrates the legislative purpose of social inclusion. Such a narrow, restrictive reading not only undermines the principle of purposive interpretation applicable to beneficial legislation but also results in gross injustice to the appellant-petitioner", the petitioner avers.It is also contended that the Division Bench erred in equating the Government to a "private litigant" under the "client's choice" doctrine. The Government, being the "State" under Article 12, is not a private entity but a constitutional authority bound by statutory obligations, the petitioner claims.Appearances for the petitioner - Advocates Abhilash MR., Sayooj Mohandas, Ann Melvin, Manjari Singh, M/s M R Law Associates, AORCase Title: SHINU K R Versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS., Diary No. 63432-2025

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks PwD Reservation In Government Pleader Post

Debby Jain

Tags