The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has granted an appeal to annul a State Government order that demanded the submission of six court order copies from each year as proof of experience. The court has determined that a certification from the Bar Association is adequate evidence of a lawyer's experience. Additionally, they concluded that introducing new requirements after the selection process violates the Constitution. The court suggested that if the state wishes to require only courtroom-experienced lawyers, they should amend the rules accordingly.

The petitioners in the case were individuals who applied for the positions of Assistant District Attorney and Deputy District Attorney under an advertisement by the Punjab Public Service Commission. They met the eligibility criteria to participate in the selection process, and successfully secured a place on the merit list. Their names were then sent to the State Government for consideration and appointment to the respective positions.

However, the State Government subsequently instructed the selected candidates to provide copies of six Court orders or zimni orders from each year as proof of their courtroom experience, which they had claimed. In response to this requirement, the petitioners have filed writ petitions.

The counsel representing the petitioner argued that a certificate issued by the Bar Council should be considered adequate evidence to determine the starting date for calculating an individual's experience in practicing law. They further contended that it is not a necessity for an individual to have their attendance recorded in the Court to establish their experience, as mandated by the Rules.

The counsel representing the respondents argued that the State has the authority to verify whether the individuals selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) possess the requisite experience as specified for the respective positions. They pointed out that the Punjab Legal and Prosecution Rules of 2010 stipulate that all appointments to the service must adhere to the selection process outlined in Appendix B, which primarily deals with the method of selection.

The respondents further contended that the State holds an independent power to scrutinize the submitted documents. In their view, the petitioners' certificates were insufficient to evaluate their practical experience at the bar. Therefore, the State requested the candidates to provide additional evidence by demonstrating their presence in Court through the submission of at least 6 zimni or interim orders for each year. Additionally, they argued that the term "at the bar" should be interpreted to mean appearing before the Court exclusively and not in any other context.

The court made the following observations: A certificate issued by the Bar Association of the relevant Court carries the same weight as a certificate from any other judicial or quasi-judicial authority. Therefore, a lawyer is not obligated to provide additional proof of their experience if they possess such a certificate. However, if it is demonstrated through other evidence or documents that an advocate who is enrolled with the Bar Council is not actually practicing law but is involved in some other business or gainful employment, this could lead to their expulsion from the Bar Council Rules.

The court suggested that self-attestation or an affidavit from a candidate, confirming their engagement in advocacy, should suffice. Additionally, the State may also consider making amendments to the existing Rules to clarify the requirements and expectations for candidates seeking legal positions.

The court also noted that Article 320 of the Constitution of India grants the Public Service Commission the authority to conduct the selection process. The Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) is a statutory body with this responsibility. The court emphasized that it is not permissible for a Superintendent or a Secretary of the State Government to disregard the recommendations of the PPSC by introducing new requirements after the selection process has been completed, and the recommendations for the appointment of individuals based on merit have already been submitted to the relevant authorities. This would be a violation of the established selection process and the authority of the PPSC.

The court determined that the State Government's primary intention is to select advocates with substantial courtroom experience. However, the approach taken by introducing the letter demanding additional proof of courtroom experience was unjustified and incorrect. If the State indeed wishes to appoint only those advocates who have exclusively practiced in the Court of law and nowhere else, the appropriate course of action would be to amend the existing rules to include such conditions. These conditions can be clearly stated in the job advertisements, specifying the required certificates or qualifications, and requested from the candidates during the application or selection process. 

The court ruled in favor of the petitioners and allowed their petition.

Case: Jyotsana Rawat and otr vs. State of Punjab and otr, CWP No.13497 of 2023(O&M).