Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

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"]

Similar News