Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad 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