The demand for court orders by the State Govt. from selected candidates for the posts of ADAs and DDAs was not sustainable in law, arbitrary, and unjustified.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - All the aforementioned writ petitions raise common question of law and all the petitioners in various writ petitions are aggrieved of the same order dated 05.06.2023 issued by respondent No.3, hence being heard together.

2. All the petitioners are aspiring candidates had applied under the advertisement dated 05.04.2023 by the Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as PPSC) for the post of Assistant District Attorney (hereinafter referred to as ADA) and Deputy District Attorney (hereinafter referred to as DDA). They have been held eligible to participate in the selection process and have been finally placed in the merit list and their names were forwarded and recommended to the State Govt. for appointment on the posts. The State Govt. has, however, issued an order on 05.06.2023 directing the selected candidates to produce copies of six Court orders / zimni orders of each year showing their presence in the Court in order to prove the experience claimed by them.

Aggrieved thereof, the present writ petitions have been filed.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned senior counsel Mr. Gurminder Singh, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that Rule 5(2) of the Punjab Prosecution and Litigation (Group A) Service Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Prosecution Rules of 2002) and the Punjab Prosecution and Litigation (Group B) Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as Prosecution Rules of 2010) both restrain from appointing a person to post in service who does not possess the qualification and experience specified against the posts Appendix B. The PPSC had in its advertisement required the candidates to submit a certificate of experience in terms of the Rules by a competent authority. Accordingly, the petitioners had submitted their certificates issued by the concerned Bar Association of the District / High Court where the Advocates have been registered and are practicing. Learned counsel submits that a person who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council starts practice from the said date as he acquires a certificate of enrollment and enrollment number.

Learned counsel further submits that certificate issued by the Bar Council is a 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. Once the certificate issued by the Bar Association has been accepted as a sufficient proof of experience by the examining body and thus, the said certificate was considered sufficient for the purpose of treating the candidates eligible for participating in the selection process, the respondents State authorities would be estopped to further examine the eligibility of selected candidates for being appointed by demanding further proof of experience by producing 6 zimni orders / attendance in the Court. The demand by the respondents State authorities is an additional requirement beyond the scope of Rules and seeks to change the Rules of the game after the game has already been played. He submits that the respondents cannot be allowed to tinker with the select list finally prepared by the PSC who has a final say in terms of Article 320 of the Constitution of India regarding selection. The State has only say with regard to suitability relating to antecedents.

4. Learned counsel Mr. D.S.Nalwa, appearing in CWP No.15061 of 2023 for candidates who are aspirants for the posts of DDA, submits that the respondent State has no authority in law to demand for the 6 zimni orders as it amounts to adding condition which was not part of advertisement for selection. Once the petitioners have been already selected as ADAs after having submitted their Certificate of Experience at the bar at the time of their selection made much earlier, t