हाई कोर्ट ने सहायक जिला अभियोजक भर्ती रोकी: अनुभव प्रमाणन पर स्पष्ट नियम चाहते

Punjab and Haryana High Court stays Assistant District Attorney recruitment

Controversy primarily relates to the stipulation of two years’ practice at the Bar as an eligibility condition and the manner in which such experience is to be established and verified

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the selection process for recruitment to the post of Assistant District Attorney (Group B) after noting that the distinction between mere enrolment as an advocate and actual legal practice is material and that the experience claimed by candidates must be capable of transparent, objective and uniform verification.

The order by Justice Sandeep Moudgil came on a petition filed by aspirants for recruitment to the post under an advertisement issued on April 24 by Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board. The controversy primarily relates to the stipulation of two years’ practice at the Bar as an eligibility condition and the manner in which such experience is to be established and verified.

The petitioners submitted that two years’ practice had been prescribed, but the advertisement did not provide “any clear, objective and uniform mechanism for establishing or verifying such practice”. They further contended that “mere enrolment with the Bar cannot, by itself, conclusively establish the factum or extent of actual practice”.

The Bench recorded the concern that experience certificates might not necessarily reflect a candidate’s actual professional engagement in the absence of an effective verification mechanism, raising the possibility of “ghost advocacy”—persons remaining enrolled as advocates without corresponding actual practice while seeking to establish eligibility through formal certification.

The petitioners also submitted that the issue of identifying genuine practising advocates and preventing misuse of certificates of practice had been specifically addressed in the statement of objects underlying the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2025, and had engaged the Supreme Court in the case of “Bhoomika Trust vs. UOI”.

Laying emphasis on actual professional exposure, Justice Moudgil observed the distinction between enrolment and actual practice was material. An experience requirement could serve its intended purpose only when the experience claimed was capable of transparent, objective and uniform verification.

“The prescription of a period of practice, without a corresponding mechanism to ascertain the genuineness of that practice, would risk reducing an otherwise substantive eligibility condition to a matter of formal certification. The object of prescribing experience is to ensure actual professional exposure; the process of verification must, therefore, be such as to advance that object,” Justice Moudgil asserted.

The court observed that the issue warranted consideration particularly because the Supreme Court had already dealt with the larger question of identification of practising advocates and verification of their professional experience in “All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India & Ors” and, more recently, in the review proceedings in “Bhoomika Trust”, “wherein a mechanism concerning experience certificates and identification of practising advocates has been laid down”.

Appearing before the Bench, amicus curiae Sanjeev Kaushik submitted that the written examination had already been conducted and the counselling process had commenced. He contended that the requirement of two years’ practice and its verification ought to be clarified before the selection process proceeded.

During the hearing, Senior Additional Advocate-General Anu Chhatrath produced a corrigendum dated September 13, issued by the Subordinate Services Selection Board clarifying that the requisite two years’ experience would be considered on the basis of a certificate issued by the Bar Council or the respective Bar Association.

A separate issue arose concerning the cut-off date. One of the petitioners 4 stated that she would complete two years’ practice on May 29, whereas the original cut-off date for submission of applications was May 20. Though the last date for submission of applications was subsequently extended to June 14, the cut-off date for counting experience remained May 20.

The Amicus Curiae submitted “a number of other aspirants who were rendered ineligible on account of the earlier cut-off date would also have fulfilled the eligibility criterion and become entitled to participate in the selection process”, if June 14 were adopted as the cut-off date for reckoning experience.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News