Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Against Government Directive on Proving Experience of Deputy District Attorneys

High Court quashes directive mandating production of court orders as proof of legal practice experience for ADAs and DDAs. In a significant judgment dated May 13, 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a government directive requiring selected candidates for the posts of Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) and Deputy District Attorneys (DDAs) to produce court orders as proof of their legal practice experience. The court held that this directive was an unjustified imposition and not part of the original recruitment process overseen by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC).

The case involved multiple appeals against the judgment of a learned Single Judge who had earlier quashed the government’s directive. The appeals were made by candidates who had not been shortlisted by the PPSC and by the State itself. The directive in question was issued on June 2, 2023, and required candidates to provide six court orders for each year of practice to prove their attendance in court.

Credibility of Existing Certification Process: Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, acting Chief Justice, observed that the recruitment process, as conducted by the PPSC, included a thorough verification of the candidates’ documents, which were deemed sufficient to establish their eligibility. "The Commission is a constitutional body, and its processes should not be undermined by additional requirements imposed post-facto by the State," the bench noted.

The court extensively discussed the principles of evaluating professional experience for legal practitioners. It was noted that the certificates provided by the Bar Council and Bar Associations, along with the enrollment certificates, were adequate proof of an advocate's practice. "Requiring additional court orders as proof is not only burdensome but also unnecessary," the court stated, referencing past judgments that upheld similar views.

Justice Sandhawalia emphasized, "The insistence on producing court orders post-selection is an arbitrary change of the rules and does not hold in the context of a fair recruitment process already concluded by the PPSC."

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to quash the directive reinforces the importance of maintaining the integrity of established recruitment processes. The judgment underscores that post-facto impositions by the State on selected candidates are untenable and highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding fair recruitment practices. This ruling is expected to streamline future recruitment processes and prevent undue bureaucratic interference.

Date of Decision: May 13, 2024