Punjab ADA Exam | Bar Association Certificate Sufficient To Prove Experience, State Can't Ask For Appearance Record In Court Order: High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the single judge's decision to the effect that a certificate issued by the Bar Association of the concerned Court would qualify as proof of experience at the Bar.

The development came after the Punjab Government's decision to direct the selected Deputy District Attorney (DDA) and Assistant District Attorney (ADA) candidates to produce court orders in order to prove their experience at the Bar, was challenged before the High Court.

Acting Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji said, "...once the Punjab Prosecution Litigation (Group-B Service) Rules, 2002 and the Punjab Prosecution Litigation (Group-B Service) Rules, 2010 provided that lawyers having 7 years of experience at the Bar and 2 years experience and practice at the Bar were being tested on the strength of an Enrollment Certificate as an Advocate or by the Bar Council or the Bar Association or any other certificate, as noticed, the findings which have been recorded do not suffer from any infirmity."

The single judge had set aside the letter of state government demanding the Court order to show experience at bar from the selected candidates in Deputy District Attorney (DDA) and Assistant District Attorney (ADA) exam.

"The learned Single Judge, in such circumstances, was justified as such in quashing the said letters and coming to the valid conclusion as such that the Secretary could not ignore the recommendations of the Commission by introducing additional requirement after the process had been concluded by the Constitutional Authority," the division bench opined.

The only power as such to examine the suitability of the candidate was with regard to the antecedents of the medical fitness or whether there was any forgery or impersonation on account of the selected candidates, it added.

These observations were made while hearing a Letter Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by the candidates of the Punjab DDA/ADA exam against the single judge's decision.

In 2023, after a selection list was prepared by the Punjab Public Service Commission for the DDA and ADA post, the Punjab Government had asked all the District Attorneys to give evidence to prove experience, every year Court orders/interim orders for the purposes of proving the attendance in Court.

Decision Of Single Judge

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma had set aside the letter directing the Court order from every year to show experience at bar from the selected candidates in DDA and ADA exam.

"An advocate who is enrolled with the Bar Council starts actually practice and a certificate of such nature can be given to him by the concerned Bar Association or by the concerned Court where he is practicing or even from any of the judicial or quasi judicial forums where he may be practicing. A certificate issued by the Bar Association of the concerned Court would have the same force as that of a certificate from any other judicial or quasi judicial authority and he, therefore, is not required to necessarily provide further proof of his experience." the judge said.

The Court had further clarified that, however, "if it is shown by other proof or documents that the concerned Advocate enrolls with the Bar Council is actually not practicing law but is doing any other business or engaged in gainful employment, the said aspect would result in his being ousted from the Bar Council Rules,"

Decision Of Division Bench

The Court considered the issue that, "Whether the appeals would be maintainable by the present appellants who are apparently not within the zone of consideration and had never raised any challenge to the list forwarded by the Commission?"

It noted that after the Commission recommended the names of short listed candidates, the same was never challenged. 

"Apparently, the State took a legal opinion...and issued the impugned letters...and resultantly, the matter went into litigation by the selected candidates," added the bench.

The bench opined that, "The position of law on the first issue is crystal clear that a dissatisfied candidate as such having sat in the examination and having accepted the terms and conditions cannot turn around and question the process, specially more so, having not filed any writ petition at an earlier point of time."

Furthermore, reliance was placed on Bar Council of India and others vs. A.K. Balaji and others, [2018 (5) SCC 379] wherein the Apex Court held that, "practice of law includes not only appearance in Courts, but also giving opinions, drafting of instruments, participation in conferences involving legal discussion. Resultantly, it was held that Advocates enrolled with the Bar Council alone are entitled to practice law except otherwise provided in any other law while dilating on the issue whether there was any bar under the Advocates Act or the Rules for the purpose of giving legal advice to their clients."

While upholding the single judge's decision the Court said, the State by asking to produce Court orders as such "chose to put in its own criteria, which we feel was beyond its purview since it was only the appointing authority and not the recruiting authority."

"The exclusive jurisdiction lay with the Commission. The learned Single Judge, in such circumstances, was justified as such in quashing the said letters and coming to the valid conclusion as such that the Secretary could not ignore the recommendations of the Commission by introducing additional requirement after the process had been concluded by the Constitutional Authority," said the Court.

Consequently, the LPA was dismissed.

Title: Sajan v. Vishal Chaudhary and others

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 157

Click here to read/download the order