Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that an experience certificate issued by a Bar Association to a lawyer is on par with a certificate issued by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority. This observation came in the case where Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma clarified that a lawyer possessing such a certificate need not furnish additional proof of legal experience.

The Court's pronouncement quashed a Punjab government order that mandated candidates selected for the positions of Assistant District Attorney (ADA) and Deputy District Attorney (DDA) to submit copies of six court orders for each year to substantiate their legal experience.

Justice Sharma articulated, "An advocate who is enrolled with the Bar Council starts actual 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."

High Court found fault with the state's requirement for candidates to produce court orders, deeming it overly restrictive. It emphasized that legal practice extends beyond courtrooms, encompassing appearances in arbitration matters, tribunals, and other quasi-judicial bodies.

The judge further remarked, "He or she cannot be said to not have experience in the practice at the Bar, limiting the practice to mean only appearing in the Court, and that too having appearances in at least 6 interim orders is limiting the participation of Advocates in the open competition for the appointment of the ADA."

Court concluded that a certificate issued by the Bar Association of the concerned court is sufficient evidence of experience. However, it also cautioned that a lawyer could face expulsion from the Bar if it is proven that they were involved in activities other than the practice of law.

Rejecting the Punjab government's argument that it has the authority to assess the suitability of selected candidates further, the Court noted that such actions would be arbitrary and could undermine the decisions of the examining authority, in this case, the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC).

State has thus been directed to expeditiously fill the positions of ADAs and DDAs within one month. It is clarified that if the state wishes to select advocates practicing solely before a court of law, it should incorporate such conditions in the rules through appropriate amendments or specify these conditions in the advertisement at the participation stage.

Case Title: Jyotsana Rawat and others vs. State of Punjab and others