Bar association certificate is sufficient proof of experience as lawyer: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that an experience certificate issued by a Bar Association to a lawyer would have the same force as that of a certificate issued by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority. [Jyotsana Rawat and others v. State of Punjab and others].Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma clarified that a lawyer with such a certificate would not be required to necessarily provide further proof of his legal experience..“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," the Court held..The Court made the observation while quashing a Punjab government order that required candidates selected for the post of Assistant District Attorney (ADA) and Deputy District Attorney (DDA) to produce copies of six court orders for each year to prove their experience..The question before the Court was whether the government's demand for the production of court orders to prove legal experience was justified after the candidate was selected for the post.The Court found the State’s decision to scrutinize the experience of candidates ‘too circumscribed.' It explained that the practice of law is not merely restricted to courts as lawyers appear in arbitration matters or before tribunals and other quasi-judicial bodies as well.“He or she cannot said to be not having an experience of practice at 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. Similarly is the situation of the DDAs,” the judge observed..The Court concluded that a certificate issued by the concerned court’s Bar Association would be sufficient to show proof of experience. “Self attestation or an affidavit of being engaged in advocacy alone can be obtained from a candidate. State may also consider amendment in Rules,” the Court added.The Court, however, also said that the lawyer could be ousted from the Bar if it is shown that he was doing any other business and not engaged in the practice of law..The Court further rejected the Punjab government’s argument that the State has the power to further examine the suitability of the selected candidates.It said the same would amount to allowing the State to act arbitrarily and reject persons who have been found to be meritorious by the examining authority.The Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) - which conducted the selection - is a statutory authority and a Superintendent or a Secretary of the State government cannot be allowed to ignore its recommendations by introducing an additional requirement, the Court observed.“Only power available with the State Govt. regarding examining the suitability of the said candidate is with reference to his antecedents or his medical fitness for the post,” the bench said.It added that the State can also deny the appointments if there is any forgery, impersonation, nepotism or favouritism..The Court proceeded to direct the State to immediately take steps to fill up the posts of ADAs and DDAs within a period of one month.It also clarified that if the State wants to select (as ADAs) only those advocates who have practiced before a court of law and nowhere else, it should incorporate such conditions in the rules by making appropriate amendments.The State can also put a condition in the advertisement and demand a particular certificate from the candidates at the stage of participation, it added.“However, demanding of 6 zimni orders / interim orders with attendance of the lawyer cannot be said to be a sufficient proof of experience,” the Court concluded..Senior Advocates Gurminder Singh and BS Sindhu and advocates Jatinder Singh Gill, Shivender Pal Singh and Sheena Khanna, advocates Naresh Kaushal, Anil Kumar Garg and Kanav Bansal, Anshul Sharma and SS Thakur, Pardhuman Garg, Karan Nehra, Abhay Josan and Harvinder Singh, VK Sandhir, Charan Singla, Tarun Bhatta, and DS Nalwa represented different petitioners.Advocates Prateek Mahajan, Daanish Mahajan, and Atul Goyal represented different intervenors.Additional Advocate General Vikas Arora represented the State of Punjab. Senior Advocate DS Patwalia and Advocate Kanna Malik represented another respondent. .[Read Judgment]