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

Share:
senior bail finger bail public accused 202 Voter Tenant Imagination Constitutional Law landlord 90 rti Punishment jails cheque compromise medical injury station evidence ada motor employee Right Punjab evidence wife penalty Punjab suicide 1 students vamendment la nd 44 fir suit interim consideration evidence property food financialfinancial Gram ginder wife order 202 natural DEMARCATION Property

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

Download Judgment

Share: