Change in selection criteria for post of Assistant District Attorney challenged in Chandigarh

The Chandigarh bench of Central Administrative Tribunal has issued notices to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the UT Administration on an application filed by a law graduate challenging the criteria for selection of nine Assistant District Attorneys (ADA) in the Law and Prosecution Department.

In the application filed before the Tribunal through advocates Gitanjali Chhabra and Muskan, 27-year-old law graduate Manik Khurana said he holds a BCom LLB (Five-Year Integrated Course) from Panjab University with a first division.

The UT Administration on June 28 invited online applications for nine ADA posts. The category-wise breakup of vacancies is UR - 7, EWS 1, and OBC1, with one post reserved for PwD candidates.

The essential qualifications prescribed include a Bachelor’s Degree in Law from a recognised University or Institute. In addition, candidates are required to have a minimum of two years’ practice as an advocate.

The upper-age limit was specified as 30 years for UR/EWS candidates, 33 years for OBC candidates, and 40 years for PwBD candidates, with relaxation applicable to government servants and other eligible categories as per rules.

The advertisement further provided that the selection process would be intimated later and may consist of a written test and interview, and candidates were advised to regularly check the UT Administration website for further updates.

Khurrana said he fulfils all the essential and desirable qualifications prescribed for the post. However, he argued that the respondents have illegally changed the criteria while shortlisting the candidates and experience requirement has been raised to six years.

The change, he argued, adversely affected the rights given under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He said despite submitting representation seeking rectification, no action has been taken. He prayed before the Tribunal to quash the changed criteria and restrain the respondents from proceeding with the interview or selection process for the posts.

After hearing of the arguments, the court adjourned the hearing of the case consideration on November 17. Prayer for interim relief for stay on shortlisting process shall be considered on the next date.

Upon query from counsel for the applicant, it is submitted that no date has been notified for the interviews as on date.