2018 Supreme(P&H) 4293
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
A.B. Chaudhari, Kuldip Singh, JJ.
Seema Devi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CWP No. 13621 of 2017 (O/M)
Decided On : 09-10-2018
Ferry Sofat, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Vivek Saini, DAG Haryana, for the Appearing Party; Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2; Amit Khatkhar, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 3
The requirement of enrollment with the Bar Council for the post of Assistant District Attorney is valid under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Headnote:
Enrollment with Bar Council - Assistant District Attorney - Advocates Act, 1961, section 29, section 30
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable in Haryana Police Academy and a law graduate, challenges the requirement of enrollment with the Bar Council for the post of Assistant District Attorney.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the requirement of enrollment with the Bar Council for the post of Assistant District Attorney is valid and not in violation of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue is whether enrollment as an advocate with the Bar Council is necessary for the appointment as Assistant District Attorney in the Prosecution Department of the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that the Advocates Act, 1961, specifically requires only enrolled advocates to practice in the courts, and since Assistant District Attorneys are advocates who practice in court, the requirement of enrollment with the Bar Council is valid.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed as it lacks merit.
JUDGMENT
Kuldip Singh, J. - Petitioner is serving as a Constable in Haryana Police Academy since 2008. At that time, she was in third year of her law course. After getting permission from department, she completed her LL.B course in the year 2009. Respondent No. 2 had advertised 180 posts of Assistant District Attorney (Group 'B') on 9.5.2017, wherein following essential qualifications were laid down :-
'Essential Qualifications for the post of Assistant District Attorney in Prosecution, Haryana
(i) Degree of Bachelor of Laws (Professional) of a recognized University.
(ii) Should have enrolled as an Advocate with Bar Council.
(iii) Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric standard or higher.'
2. In the said advertisement, no experience for an Advocate is required. It is further stated that Rule 49 of Bar Council of India Rules bars the Government servant from practising as an Advocate as long as he/she continues in such Government service. Due to said rule, petitioner did not enroll herself with Bar Council. The advocate, who join Government service or private service or service on contact basis, has to surrender his/her sanad/licence. It is claimed by petitioner that since no experience was required, therefore, Notification No. GSR 23/Const./Art.309/2001, as applicable to Haryana State Prosecution Legal (Group 'B') Service Rules, 2001 (Annexure-P-1), so far as it lays down the condition of enrollment of the candidate with State Bar Council, is liable to be quashed being violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of Constitution of India. Petitioner also seeks direction for quashing the advertisement dated 9.5.2017 (Annexure-P-2), which restrains petitioner from participating in the selection process as she is not enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council being a Government employee though being a law graduate from a recognized University/College.
3. Respondent No. 2, in reply, stated that they have merely advertised the posts as per the requisition. It is stated that relevant rules are in consonance with the requirement given in the advertisement. Therefore, there is no fault in the advertisement. It was stated that after appointment, the candidates become notified as Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor for appearance on behalf of Government before various Courts within the State of Haryana. Recently, the Apex Court in Deepak Aggarwal v. Kesav Kaushik, has held that Assistant District Attorney/Public Prosecutor are the advocates. Therefore, the enrollment as an advocate with Bar Council, is required for appointment as Assistant District Attorney in Prosecution Department of State.
4. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have also carefully gone through file.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is in Government service and she wants that since no experience is required for an advocate for appointment as an Assistant District Attorney in Prosecution Department of State, therefore, the condition in advertisement, requiring the enrollment with Bar Council as an advocate, should be quashed. We are not impressed with the said contention. The Assistant District Attorney is basically an advocate, who appears on behalf of Government to prosecute or defend the case for or on behalf of Government. The Assistant District Attorney thus has to practise in Court basically as an advocate though, on behalf of Government. The Advocates Act, 1961, allows only advocates to practise in the Courts.
6. section 29 of Advocates Act, 1961, lays down as under :-
'29. Advocates to be the only recognized class of persons entitled to practise law.- Subject to the provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder, there shall, as from the appointed day, be only one class of persons entitled to practise the profession of law, namely, advocates.'
7. section 30 of Advocates Act,1961, further lays down as under :-
'30. Right of advocates to practise .- Subject to provisions of this Act, every advocate whose name is entered in the State roll shall be entitled as of right to pr