Case Note & Summary
The matter pertained to a writ appeal filed by V. Muthupandi, a differently abled advocate, against the order of a learned single judge of the Madras High Court dismissing his writ petition. The appellant had challenged Notification No.1/2024 dated 04.07.2024 issued by the respondents, the Government of Tamil Nadu, inviting applications for engagement of government lawyers under the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai Appointment Rules, 2017, without providing reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities. The appellant contended that such non-reservation violated Section 34(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The learned single judge rejected the claim, holding that the engagement of government lawyers is contractual and not an appointment, hence the reservation provisions do not apply. In the writ appeal, the appellant argued that he was not directly seeking reservation but wanted accommodation under the Act, relying on its object. However, the Division Bench noted the contradiction in his stance. The court examined the nature of the engagement, emphasizing that the relationship between the government and its law officers is that of client and legal representative, based on contract, and not a service appointment. The court observed that the government as a litigant has a fundamental right to choose its legal counsel, and any imposition of reservation would infringe upon this right. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Vikas Singh v. Union Public Service Commission, the court acknowledged the principle of reasonable accommodation but distinguished it, stating that reservation under Section 34(1) of the RPwD Act applies only to appointments in government establishments and cannot be extended to contractual engagements like that of government lawyers. The court also held that judicial review cannot direct a litigant to engage a particular lawyer by reserving posts. The appeal was dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Disability Rights - Reservation in Government Establishments - Section 34(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandates reservation only for appointments, not for contractual engagements of lawyers - The court held that engagement of government lawyers is contractual and not an appointment under service rules, thus reservation under the Act does not apply; the appellant's attempt to indirectly claim reservation was rejected. (Paras 1-2, 6-7)
B) Constitutional Law - Right to Choose Counsel - The government as a litigant has a fundamental right to engage lawyers of its choice; imposing reservation would impinge on this right - The court observed that the relationship between lawyer and client is privileged and confidential; the government's prerogative to engage lawyers cannot be subjected to reservation as it would violate the litigant's right. (Paras 4, 6)
C) Service Law - Distinction Between Appointment and Engagement - Engagement of government lawyers under the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai Appointment Rules, 2017 is purely contractual and not a service appointment - The notification and rules clearly state the appointment is on contractual basis, terminable at will, without regularization claims; therefore, service law reservations do not apply. (Paras 3-4, 6)
D) Judicial Review - Scope of Interference - Courts cannot direct a litigant to engage a particular lawyer; reservation in such engagements is not within the scope of judicial review - The High Court held that it cannot issue a direction to the government to reserve posts for government lawyers as that would interfere with the litigant's discretion. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether reservation under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 applies to the engagement of government lawyers on contractual basis.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Section 34(1) of RPwD Act provides reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in appointments to government establishments
- not contractual engagements
- Engagement of lawyers by government is contractual and not an appointment under service rules
- Government as litigant has right to choose lawyers of its choice
- Claim for reservation in indirect manner is not entertainable
- Reasonable accommodation does not imply reservation in lawyer engagements
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 154
WA No. 2214 of 2026 and CMP No. 19163 of 2026
S. M. Subramaniam, N. Senthilkumar
Mr.G.Murugendran (Appellant); Dr.R.Gouri, Government Counsel (Respondents)
The Secretary to Government, Public Department, Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai -600009; The Secretary to Government, Law Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai -600009
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against the order of a single judge dismissing a writ petition challenging a government notification for engagement of law officers without providing reservation for persons with disabilities.
Remedy Sought
To set aside the single judge's order dated 27.11.2025 in WP.No.8428 of 2025 and consequently direct the respondents to provide reservation for differently abled persons under Section 34 of the RPwD Act in the engagement of government lawyers.
Filing Reason
The appellant, a differently abled advocate, filed the writ petition challenging Notification No.1/2024 dated 04.07.2024 issued by the respondents for engagement of government lawyers without providing reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities, contending violation of Section 34 of the RPwD Act.
Previous Decisions
The learned single judge of the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition on 27.11.2025, holding that reservation under the Disabilities Act does not apply to contractual engagement of government lawyers. Hence, the present writ appeal was filed.
Issues
Whether reservation under Section 34(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 applies to the engagement of government lawyers on contractual basis?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant submitted that he was not seeking reservation but only seeking to be accommodated as a government lawyer under the Act, relying on its object.
Appellant argued that the object of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 should be considered to provide reasonable accommodation.
Respondents contended that the engagement of government lawyers is purely contractual under the 2017 Rules and does not constitute appointment under service rules, hence reservation under Section 34 does not apply.
Ratio Decidendi
Reservation under Section 34(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is applicable only to appointments in government establishments and does not extend to contractual engagements, such as engagement of government lawyers. The engagement of a lawyer by the government is a contractual arrangement, not an appointment under service rules, and the government as a litigant has the fundamental right to choose its legal representatives without being bound by reservation mandates. An indirect claim for reservation cannot be sustained.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 34(1) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 contemplates that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses under sub- section (1) to Section 34.
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. ... It is not an appointment. It is an engagement / contract based on which confidentiality is maintained between the parties.
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 High Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review cannot issue a direction to the litigant to engage a particular lawyer by making certain reservation.
Procedural History
The appellant filed WP.No.8428 of 2025 before the Madras High Court challenging Notification No.1/2024 dated 04.07.2024 issued by the respondents for engagement of government lawyers without providing reservation for persons with disabilities. On 27.11.2025, the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ appeal (WA No. 2214 of 2026) on an unspecified date. The appeal was heard and dismissed on 28.07.2026.
Acts & Sections
- The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: 34(1)
- Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai Appointment Rules, 2017: Rule 5(3)
