District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Strikes Down Additional Certificate Requirement for ADA and DDA Post: Directed to Fill-up Vacancies: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking ruling handed down on October 13th, 2023, a Single Judge bench delivered a verdict that will have far-reaching implications for the legal profession. The judgment, which examined the demand for additional certificates of experience from selected candidates for the posts of Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) and Deputy District Attorneys (DDAs) in the Punjab Prosecution Department, has made a strong statement regarding the definition of legal practice.

"Practice of law is not limited to litigation appearances; it encompasses various facets of legal work," the judgment emphasized.

This decision clarifies the role of regulatory authorities and the powers of state authorities in scrutinizing selected candidates. "The State's authority is confined to assessing antecedents, medical fitness, forgery, nepotism, and favoritism, and cannot introduce additional requirements post-selection," the judgment asserted.

The judgment declared that certain demands made of selected candidates were "arbitrary and unjustified," and highlighted that such demands hindered the selection process. It also suggested corrective measures for the State, allowing them to amend rules to specify requirements for practicing advocates but stressed the importance of clear conditions in advertisements.

The ruling referred to several important cases, includingTej Prakash Pathak v. State of U.P., Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji, Devinder Singh v. State of Haryana, and Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Punjab and Haryana High Court declared that the demands imposed on selected candidates were "set aside as arbitrary and infringing upon the principles of fairness and equal opportunity." The judgment provided guidance for the State to frame specific criteria for practicing advocates in recruitment notices but with a clear stipulation of such requirements at the outset.

Additionally, the judgment ordered the immediate quashing and setting aside of the letter dated 05.06.2023. It directed the respondents to proceed with filling up the posts of ADAs and DDAs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

This landmark judgment has sparked discussions within the legal community, with many applauding the broader definition of legal practice. It has raised questions about the scope of regulatory authority and the extent to which the state can impose additional requirements on selected candidates. The legal fraternity is closely watching how this decision will shape the future of legal practice and recruitment processes in the country.

In the words of the representing advocate for the petitioner, Mr. D.S. Patwalia, "This judgment reaffirms the essence of legal practice and underscores the importance of a level playing field in the recruitment of legal professionals."

Date of Decision: 13 October 2023

Jyotsana Rawat and others vs State of Punjab and others

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/13Oct23-Jyotsana_Rawat_And_Ors_vs_State_Of_Punjab_And_Others.pdf"]

Latest Legal News