“As the Law Officers engaged by the government do not hold a civil post, nor the relationship of master and servant exists, Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would not be applicable. The criterion to apply the reservation policy would not be attracted,” the High Court said.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in 2017 by local political leader Thol Thirumavalavan, seeking horizontal and vertical reservation for women, Scheduled Caste (SC), and Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities in the appointment of law officers for the Madras High Court and subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu, was dismissed by the Court.

The petitioner in the PIL argued that according to the Constitution, reservation should apply even to temporary positions. He highlighted that the State of Telangana had provisions for reservation, extending opportunities to women, SC/ST, and minority candidates aiming for law officer appointments.

Advocate M Palanimuthu, representing Thirumavalavan, sought a declaration asserting that the Appointment of Law Officers of the High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017, were arbitrary in nature.

Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram, representing the State government, contested the PIL, asserting that lawyers couldn't be categorized as government employees. He argued that the role of a law officer didn't constitute a civil post but rather involved engaging professional practitioners for specific legal tasks, utilizing their legal expertise.

The Court maintained that government orders and office memoranda, which include provisions for reservation, couldn't be applied to contractual employees. Such directives were deemed applicable solely to individuals in direct employment with the government, local bodies, or institutions.

Case Title - Thol Thirumaavalavan vs Principal secretary