The Madras High Court has affirmed that the engagement of Government Law Officers is a matter of contractual engagement based on client choice rather than a regular appointment to public service under Service Rules. Consequently, the mandatory reservation framework prescribed under Section 34 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, cannot be applied to compel the State to reserve posts for Government lawyers or force a litigant to select specific legal representation.

The Bench clarified that the State, acting in its capacity as a litigant, possesses the fundamental prerogative to select, engage, or replace its legal counsel based on trust, confidentiality, and administrative requirements. While differently abled individuals are fully eligible to apply for law officer engagements without discrimination, judicial review under Article 226 Constitution of India cannot extend to enforcing reservations in legal representation, as doing so would directly interfere with a litigant's right to choose its legal advocate.

A Division Bench comprising Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice N. Senthilkumar while dealing with a Writ Appeal challenging the selection process for Law Officers, observed, “…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”.

Advocate G. Murugendran appeared for the appellant and Dr. R. Gouri, Government Counsel appeared for the respondent.

The appellant, V. Muthupandi, challenged Notification No. 1 of 2024 issued under Rule 5(3) of the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017. The notification invited applications for contractual engagement as Additional Advocate General, Special Government Pleader, Additional Government Pleader, and Government Advocate. The appellant sought to secure accommodation or reservation as a Government Law Officer under Section 34 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The appellant had initially preferred a writ petition seeking reservation under the 2016 Act. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on November 27, 2025 after examining the scope of reservation under the Act, leading to the present Writ Appeal before the Division Bench.

The High Court said that Section 34 of the 2016 Act applies to appointments in Government establishments under regular cadre strength, which is fundamentally distinct from contractual lawyer engagements.

“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 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”, the Bench said.

The Court held that there was no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the Writ Appeal without costs, closing the connected miscellaneous petition. The Court observed that the appellant remains free to submit an application for engagement under future notifications on equal terms with other applicants.

Cause Title: V. Muthupandi v. The Secretary to Government, Public Department & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:3189)

Appearances:

Appellant: G. Murugendran, Advocate.

Respondent: Dr. R. Gouri, Government Counsel.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: