The Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition filed by advocate Anil Kumar P.R., who sought reappointment as an Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor after attaining the age of 60 years. The Court held that the petitioner had accepted his appointment with a clear condition that his tenure would end upon reaching the prescribed age limit and found no legal basis to interfere with the government's decision.
Background of the Case
Anil Kumar P.R. was appointed in 2023 as an Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor for Pathanamthitta district. His appointment order provided that his tenure would continue for three years or until he attained the age of 60 years, whichever occurred earlier. After completing 60 years on May 20, 2026, he sought relaxation of the age limit and requested reappointment. However, the State Government rejected his representation, citing the age bar under the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Services) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978.
The petitioner argued that other Government Pleaders in the district had been allowed to continue and claimed that he had been treated unequally. He also relied on previous High Court decisions concerning appointments of Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders.
Court's Observations
Justice Viju Abraham observed that the petitioner had accepted the appointment in 2023 with full knowledge that it would automatically end on attaining 60 years of age.
The Court noted,
“The petitioner accepted the appointment offer... with the rider that he had to demit office on attaining the age of 60 years.”
It further observed that if the petitioner had any objection to that condition, he should have challenged it when the appointment order was issued instead of waiting until after retirement.
Rejecting the allegation of discrimination, the Court found that the Government had extended the assignments of other Government Pleaders only until they reached the age of 60. The petitioner, having already crossed that limit, could not claim parity.
The Court also examined the judgments cited by the petitioner and held that they dealt with different factual situations. In particular, the earlier ruling in P.P. Biju concerned payment of remuneration to a Government Pleader who continued working because no replacement had been arranged, whereas in the present case the petitioner's assignment had already ended and an alternative arrangement had been made by assigning additional charge to another Public Prosecutor.
Decision
Finding no illegality in the government's refusal to grant reappointment after the petitioner crossed the prescribed age limit, the Kerala High Court upheld the communication rejecting his request.
Holding that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Details
Case Title: Anil Kumar P.R. v. State of Kerala & Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 21622 of 2026
Judge: Justice Viju Abraham
Decision Date: 16 July 2026
 Act, 2007 KAAPA-300x169.webp)
