SAJAN Vs. VISHAL CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeals, which are 8 in number, are directed against the judgment dtd. 13/10/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge wherein, he allowed the writ petitions filed by the private respondents and quashed the letter dtd. 5/6/2023 (Annexure P-7) while deciding the bunch of 11 writ petitions, the lead case of which was CWP-13497-2023, 'Jyotsana Rawat and others vs. State of Punjab and others". It was further directed that the State shall taken steps to fill up the posts of the Assistant District Attorneys (in short 'ADAs') and the Deputy District Attorneys (in short 'DDAs') within a period of one month. Reference is being made to LPA-1668-2023, Sajan vs. Vishal Chaudhary and others, for the purpose of extracting the factual matrix.

(2.) Vide the abovesaid letter, the Office of the Director, Prosecution and Litigation and Additional Secretary, Government of Punjab had asked all the District Attorneys to give evidence to prove experience and claims, every year (6) Court orders/interim orders for the purposes of proving the attendance in Court as the list of the selected candidates had been sent by the Commission. Apparently, the same was in pursuance of the earlier communication dtd. 2/6/2023 (Annexure P-6) whereby, the Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Judicial Branch-II had written to the Director, Prosecution and Litigation, Punjab that the list had been received from the Punjab Public Service Commission (in short 'the Commission') containing the names of the selected candidates for the posts of AD As and DDAs and the evidence to prove their claims regarding experience of every year and 6 Court orders/zimini orders in lieu of attendance in Court be sent to the Government.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, vide detailed judgment while dealing with both the selection processes of DDAs and AD As, came to the conclusion that the matter regarding the 'Change of Rules of the Game' was still pending consideration before the Apex Court in Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court, (2013) 4 SCC 540 and, therefore, refrained from applying the said principle. However, he examined the legality of the issue of the letter dtd. 5/6/2023 and while relying upon the judgment in Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji, (2018) 5 SCC 379; Devinder Singh vs. State of Haryana, (1997) 5 SLR 580 and Madan Lal vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1995 (3) SCC 486 and held that an Advocate once enrolled with the Bar Council would actually start practice and, therefore, a certificate given by the Bar Association or by the concerned Court would be valid and would have the same force as that of a certificate from the judicial or quasi judicial authorities and the candidate was not required to further prove his experience. The self attestation or an affidavit of being engaged in advocacy alone could be obtained from a candidate. However, if there was some doubt regarding his enrollment or he was not actually practicing law, the said aspect would result in his being ousted under the Bar Council Rules. Reference was also made to the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 framed to fall back on the practice of law and Article 220 of the Constitution of India. The fact that a lawyer could be appearing before the Wakf Board, Service Tribunal, Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals or any other tribunals or forums like Central Administrative Tribunal, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, District Consumer Courts and Commissions weighed with the learned Single Judge while relying upon Sec. 24(7) Cr.P.C., whereby, it provided that the Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor could be eligible to be appointed if he had been practicing as an Advocate for not less than 7 years. Resultantly, it was held that candidates who had been selected by the Commission and from whom certificates had been demanded was non-application of mind.