Appointment As Govt Pleader Or Public Prosecutor Not A 'Right', No Reservation Provided For Persons With Benchmark Disabilities Under RPwD Act: Kerala HC

Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandates that reservation of 4% of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength of each group of posts should be reserved to the persons with benchmark disabilities.

Justice D.K. Singh observed that appointment of advocates as Government Pleaders or Public Prosecutors is a decision of the Government, as they are the client here. It was also stated that no one has an inherent right to claim appointment as Government Pleaders or Public Prosecutors.

Court stated, “The 4% reservation is against the vacancies in a cadre. The appointment of the Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor is not an appointment in a service which has a cadre strength, and there are no vacancies against which the reservation of 4% under Section 34 of the Act of 2016 can be made applicable. Even otherwise, 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.”

The writ petitions were filed for making reservations in favour of persons with benchmark disabilities as per Section 34 of the Act while making appointments to the post of Public Prosecutor in Pathanamthitta district.

The Counsel for Petitioners submitted that 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 Pleader 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 Court referring to State of U.P and others v. U.P. State Law Officers Association and others (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.

As, such the Court concluded that appointment of the Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor is not an appointment in a service which has a defined cadre strength, as there are no vacancies within a cadre for making 4% reservation and thus Section 34 cannot be applied.

Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates N.N. Sasi, Harisankar S, Manu Ramachandran, M.Kiranlal R.Rajesh (Varkala), Sameer M Nair, Geethu Krishnan, Sailakshmi Menon

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Government Pleaders V Manu and Bimal K Nath

Case Title: Mrs Shinu K R v State of Kerala & Connected Case

Case No: WP(C) NO. 40356 OF 2022 & Connected Case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 114