PARMANAND SHARMA Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a law graduate from the University of Rajasthan. He had applied for being enrolled as an advocate on 18-7-1985 after depositing the required fee. At the time of his applying for being enrolled as an advocate he was working as In-charge, Legal Cell, General Manager, Telecommunication, District Jaipur (in short GMTD, Jaipur) and as alleged he was authorised on behalf of GMTD to appear in all subordinate Courts at Jaipur. The letters of authorisation are attached as Annexures 1, 2 and 3. The petitioner submits that he had applied for being enrolled under proviso (1) of the condition No. 1 for enrolment as an advocate given in para 4 of the rules framed by the Bar Council of Rajasthan under Section 28 (2) (d) read with Section 24 (i) (c) of the Advocates Act. For the reason that the petitioner was actually working and giving appearance as Law Officer of the GMTD, Rajasthan and was going and presenting and pleading the cases of the employer at Jaipur, the Courts had been recognising him as a person authorising to act and plead on behalf of GMTD. It is submitted that any person if qualified is to be admitted as an advocate but if he is either in full or part-time service or employed or is engaged in any trade or business or profession is not entitled to be admitted as an advocate as per rules. However, there is a proviso to the rule to the effect that any person who is Law Officer of the Central Government or State Government or Corporation or statutory body shall be entitled to be admitted as an advocate and such Law Officer meant a person who is so designated by the terms of his appointment.

(2.) The petitioner submits that a bare reading of the proviso which shall be reproduced hereinafter makes it clear that any person who is authorised by the employer by giving authority to him for appearing in the cases and if he possesses the law degree is entitled to be enrolled as an advocate. The request of the petitioner was declined by the Bar Council of Rajasthan on 15-2-1991 and the Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Rajasthan had given reasons to the effect that the petitioner was not designated as Law Officer. Copy of the order impugned is attached as Annexure-4. It is submitted that sub-rule (10) of Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 does authorise the Central Government to give permission to any of its employee to get enrolled as an advocate subject to the condition that such employee shall not engage himself in legal profession either independently or otherwise so long as he continues in the service of the Central Government. It is submitted that the GMTD, Jaipur had given permission to the petitioner to get himself enrolled as an advocate from the Bar Council of Rajasthan as per the conditions as mentioned above. It is stated that the petitioner was a Central Government employee and was governed by the Central Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and, therefore, subject to the conditions mentioned in the rules, the petitioner was entitled to be enrolled as an advocate. Apart from above, it is the case of the petitioner that he is appearing in the Court for last so many years, more than a decade, in the cases of the department and for all practical purposes even though he is not specifically designated as Law Officer, but he is working as Law Officer and thus, on the facts mentioned above, the petitioner is praying that he be allowed to be enrolled as an advocate subject to all the conditions which are applicable under the rules.

(3.) The petition has been opposed by respondent No. 1 by filing written statement. It is stated that because of the reason that the petitioner is in full time of service or employment, he is not entitled to be admitted as an advocate.