HPSC COMPLETES INTERVIEWS FOR SELECTION TO 255 POSTS OF ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
WHEN 50 YEARS AGO IN 1976, PARLIAMENT OF INDIA OMITTED THE WORD/TERM “ATTORNEY” FROM ADVOCATES ACT, 1961 ITSELF THEN HOW & WHY HARYANA GOVT. PROSECUTION LEGAL SERVICE RULES STILL CONTINUE TO USE IT – ADVOCATE HEMANT KUMAR
Face2News/Chandigarh
With the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) having concluded interviews for selection to 255 posts of Assistant District Attorney (ADA) on October 18, a long-standing question over the nomenclature of regular appointed Law Officers in Haryana Government has come into focus.
Advocate Hemant Kumar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has legally questioned the continued use of the word ‘Attorney’ in Haryana State Prosecution Legal Service Rules both for Group A and Group posts, arguing that the terminology deserves a fresh legal examination in the light of changes made to the Advocates Act, 1961, by Parliament of India fifty years ago in 1976.
The issue has acquired added significance as HPSC Chairman Alok Verma’s six-years tenure is scheduled to end on coming 22nd October 2026. The final result of the ADA recruitment may be announced anytime before that, although its timing remains subject to the Commission’s official decision.
Hemant sent a legal notice to the Governor, Chief Minister, Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Advocate General, Legal Remembrancer, Director of Prosecution and other concerned authorities, seeking clarification on the legal basis of the existing designations and a review of the applicable service rules. He says no response has been received so far.
FIFTY YEARS AFTER THE 1976 AMENDMENT, THE TERMINOLOGY QUESTION PERSISTS
At the centre of the representation are the Haryana State Prosecution Legal Service (Group-B) Rules, 2001, which governs recruitment and service conditions for posts of Assistant District Attorney (ADA), and the Haryana State Prosecution Legal Service (Group-A) Rules, 2013, which use the designations District Attorney (DA) and Deputy District Attorney(DDA).
Hemant argues that these designations should be examined against the legislative history of the Advocates Act, 1961, particularly the amendments enacted in 1976. He maintains that the State should clarify whether retaining the term ‘Attorney’ in the nomenclature of its prosecution service is legally and administratively justified and whether amendments to the service rules is warranted.
The central question, he contends, is not merely semantic. It concerns the consistency of statutory terminology, the legal framework governing the profession of advocacy and the designations under which government law officers are appointed and perform their duties.
However, the deletion or alteration of terminology in the Advocates Act does not, by itself, automatically invalidate every state service designation containing the word ‘Attorney’. The legality of the Haryana designations would have to be assessed in the context of the relevant statutory provisions, the State’s legislative competence and the applicable service rules.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER (GP) IN CIVIL CASES, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (PP) IN CRIMINAL COURTS
A key element of Hemant’s representation is the distinction between service designations and the legal capacities in which government advocates appear before courts.
In civil proceedings, the designation of Government Pleader (GP) is recognised under the Code of Civil Procedure(CPC), 1908. In criminal proceedings, the office and functions of Public Prosecutor (PP) are governed by the applicable criminal procedure law, including the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Hemant points to what he considers a lack of consistency between these court-facing roles and the designations prescribed under Haryana’s prosecution service rules. While the terms Government Pleader (GP) and Public Prosecutor (PP) describe recognised legal roles, the service rules retain the titles District Attorney (DA), Deputy District Attorney (DDA) and Assistant District Attorney (ADA).
He has urged the State Government to explain the statutory and administrative relationship between these different designations and determine whether a more uniform nomenclature would be appropriate.
ADVOCATE GENERAL’S OFFICE OFFERS A DIFFERENT NOMENCLATURE
The representation also refers to designations commonly used in the Haryana Advocate General’s office at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, including Senior Additional Advocate General, Additional Advocate General, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Deputy Advocate General and Assistant Advocate General.
Hemant has further cited the Haryana Law Officers (Engagement) Act, 2016, noting that it does not use the term ‘Attorney’ in its nomenclature for law officers.
He argues that these examples provide grounds for a broader review of the terminology used across the State’s legal establishment, particularly where different designations coexist within the same government litigation and prosecution framework.
ARTICLE 76: A CONSTITUTIONAL DISTINCTION
The notice also refers to Article 76 of the Constitution, which provides for the office of the Attorney General for India.
Hemant contends that the constitutional and statutory framework governing legal offices should be considered while examining the designations used for Haryana’s district-level prosecution officers.
The constitutional reference, however, does not independently establish that the State’s use of the word ‘Attorney’ is unlawful. The Attorney General for India is a distinct constitutional office, and the validity of state-level service designations must be determined under the laws and rules applicable to those posts.
WHAT THE ADVOCATE WANTS
Hemant has called upon the Haryana Government to undertake a reasoned review of the Group-A and Group-B prosecution service rules and consider replacing the existing designations, where legally appropriate, with alternatives such as Government Advocate, Government Pleader, Public Prosecutor or Law Officer.
He says the exercise could improve consistency across government legal services, clarify the distinction between cadre designations and courtroom functions, and ensure that service rules remain aligned with the prevailing legal framework.
The demand is for a formal examination of the issue and an appropriate, reasoned decision by the competent authority—not an assumption that the existing designations are automatically invalid.
THE LARGER QUESTION
With interviews for 255 ADA posts now complete, the controversy raises a wider question about whether Haryana’s prosecution service nomenclature should be revisited in the light of legislative developments, current legal practice and the State’s own framework for engaging law officers.
The immediate focus is on whether the government will respond to the legal notice, clarify the statutory basis of the existing designations and initiate a review of the relevant service rules.
For now, the recruitment process and the nomenclature issue remain separate matters. Whether the representation leads to a formal policy or rule-making exercise will depend on the response of the competent authorities.
