The high court has stayed the recruitment process for 170 posts of assistant district attorneys (ADAs) in Punjab.
The bench of justice Sandeep Moudgil passed the order on a bunch of petitions by one Amiteshwar Singh Rajput and others in which they had sought quashing of the condition prescribing a mandatory requirement of two-year legal practice.
The posts were advertised by subordinate services selection board, Punjab, in April 2026. The petitioners had argued that though two-year practice at the Bar has been prescribed as an eligibility condition, the advertisement does not set out any clear objective and uniform mechanism for establishing or verifying such practice. Mere enrolment with the Bar cannot, by itself, conclusively establish the fact or extent of actual practice, they had said.
The court recorded that the concern raised is that in the absence of an effective verification mechanism, experience certificates may not necessarily reflect the actual professional engagement of a candidate, then giving rise to the possibility of what has been referred to as “ghost advocacy” — persons remaining enrolled as advocates without corresponding actual practice, while seeking to establish eligibility on the basis of formal certification.
During the hearing, the amicus curiae in the case had stated that written examination already stands conducted and the counselling process has since been commenced and therefore, the requirement of two-year practice and the manner of its verification ought to be clarified before initiation of selection process.
{{/usCountry}}During the hearing, the amicus curiae in the case had stated that written examination already stands conducted and the counselling process has since been commenced and therefore, the requirement of two-year practice and the manner of its verification ought to be clarified before initiation of selection process.
{{/usCountry}}The state’s counsel had submitted that the requisite two years’ experience would be considered on the basis of a certificate issued by the Bar Council or the respective Bar body.
“The distinction between enrolment and actual practice is material. An experience requirement can serve its intended purpose only when the experience claimed is 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,” the court observed.
The court has now stayed the selection process and given the state time till next hearing to file an affidavit specifically placing on record the last date prescribed for submission of online applications pursuant to advertisement, the original date as well as the subsequent extension, if any, along with the relevant public notice/order, and clarifying the date which was ultimately to be treated as the relevant cut-off date for determining eligibility, particularly with regard to the requirement of two years’ practice. The matter has been adjourned for September 24.