Certificate Issued By Bar Association Sufficient To Prove Experience For Practising Advocates, Further Proof Not Required: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that 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 would qualify as proof of one's experience.

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma added that 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, Court or judicial or quasi-judicial forums where he is practising.

"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. 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." 

These observations came in response to the batch petitions filed by candidates who were selected in the ADA and District Attorney (DA) exams under the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC).  

Several aspiring candidates applied for the positions of ADA and DDA through the PPSC. They were initially deemed eligible, placed on the merit list, and recommended for appointment. However, the State Government later issued an order on June 5, 2023, requiring the selected candidates to provide six Court orders/interim orders for each year as proof of their experience, beyond the previously accepted certificates issued by the Bar Association. The petitioners challenged this demand in writ petitions.

Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh appearing for the petitioner argued that a certificate issued by the Bar Council is sufficient proof of the date from which the experience of practice at the Bar is to be counted and it is not necessary for an individual to get his attendance marked in the Court for proving his experience as required under the Rules.

Justice Sharma noted that once a law graduate is enrolled as an advocate, the conditions under the Advocate’s Act apply to him. He is not allowed to do any other business nor he can join any service or hold any office of profit or gain. 

Referring to the Rules of Legal Education 2008 framed by the BCI under the Advocates Act, the Court observed, "practice constitutes generally to mean pleading, submitting pleadings, acting as an attorney in any Court or before any authority."

The Court added that if a lawyer is regularly appearing in arbitration matters or is only practising in the field of registration of documents or is appearing before various Tribunals or Consumer Forums, he cannot said to be not having experience of 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 Advocate’s in the open competition for appointment of the ADA.

The court examined relevant precedents and law and found that the State's demand was limiting and unjustified. The court concluded that the certificates issued by the Bar Association were valid proof of experience and that the State's actions were arbitrary.

It added that after the candidate has been found meritorious the only power available to the State Government is to examine the suitability of the said candidate with reference to his antecedents or his medical fitness for the post.

In light of the above the Court said that the decision of the state government to demand the Court order to show experience at bar from the selected candidates is, "is wholly arbitrary; unjustified and is not sustainable in law."

The plea was disposed of with the direction to take immediate steps for proceeding to fill up the posts of ADAs and DDAs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Appearance: Gurminder Singh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by  Advocates Jatinder Singh Gill and Shivender Pal Singh.

Sheena Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP-13497-2023.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 202

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

Click Here to Download/Read the Order