The high court has stayed the recruitment process for 170 posts of assistant district attorneys (ADAs) in Punjab.
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.
“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.
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. 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.
