IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 283 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30849/2007 Dated 24/10/2007 .................... APPELLANT: 2ND PETITIONER: -------------------------- K.R.BIJU BABU, W/O. BABU K.N., D-28, CBI QUARTERS, KALOOR P.O., COCHIN. BY ADV. RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.R.JAYACHANDRAN SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT & 1ST PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- 1. THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY) ERNAKULAM. 2. ANILKUMAR V.N., S/O.NARAYANA KURUP, "VARSHA", SONIA NAGAR, PANATHIL PADAM ROAD, EDAPPALLI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) -R1 SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON 25/03/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 283 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated 25th March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The point that arises for decision in this Writ Appeal is whether the appellant, who is a Public Prosecutor appointed by the Central Government, to conduct cases for the C.B.I., is eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of District and Sessions Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service, by direct recruitment. The appellant herein was the second petitioner in the Writ Petition. The respondents herein were respectively the respondent and first petitioner therein. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The High Court of Kerala as per Ext.P7 notification dated 16.4.2007, invited applications for appointment to six vacancies in the post of District and Sessions Judge, by direct recruitment from the Bar. One of the essential qualifications for appointment was that the candidate shall be a practising advocate and should have practised for a period of not less than seven years. The said qualification, as notified in Ext.P7, reads as follows: WA 283/2008 2 “He shall be a practising Advocate and should have so practised for a period of not less than 7 (seven) years.” The main dispute that arose for decision in this case was whether the writ petitioners were having the said qualification. 3. The appellant herein was enrolled as an advocate by the Bar Council of Kerala on 22.2.1987, as evident from Ext.P2 certificate of enrolment. She was appointed as a Public Prosecutor by the Central Government on the advice of the Union Public Service Commission on 6.2.2001. The copy of the appointment order Annexure-RI would show that the appellant was appointed to Group B gazetted post under the Delhi Police Establishment. Later, the Central Government appointed her by Ext.P4 order dated 3.9.2001 as Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Eversince, she is working as Public Prosecutor under the C.B.I. While so, as mentioned earlier, applications were invited by the High Court of Kerala by Ext.P7 notification for appointment to the post of District and Sessions Judge. The appellant applied and she was issued with Ext.P11 hall ticket to participate in a written test scheduled to be held from 27.10.2007 to 29.10.2007. Later, she was served with Ext.P13 communication dated 9.10.2007, informing her that she not being a practising advocate on the date of the application, her application has been WA 283/2008 3 rejected and the admission ticket issued to her for the test has been recalled. In the above background, the writ petition was filed. 4. In the writ petition, she did not produce the appointment order to the post of Public Prosecutor, made on the advice of the U.P.S.C. She sought reliefs in the writ petition, mainly relying on a repealed provision in Rule 49 of Chapter II of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules and also a decision of the Apex Court in Sushma Suri v. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi [(1999(1) SCC 330]. 5. The respondent in the writ petition resisted the application, contending that the said decision has since been further explained and clarified by the Apex Court in Satish Kumar Sharma v. Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 2001 SC 509]. It was also contended that the case of the writ petitioners is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Biji v. Registrar, High Court of Kerala [2001(3) KLT 99], wherein the eligibility of an Assistant Public Prosecutor under the Kerala Government for applying to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate was considered. The respondent also pointed out that in view of the amendment to Rule 49, introduced with effect from 22.6.2001, the writ petitioners were ineligible. Reliance was also placed on the provisions of Article 233(2) of WA 283/2008 4 the Constitution of India. 6. The learned single Judge upheld the contentions of the respondent and dismissed the writ petition. It was held that the writ petitioners were full time salaried employees and therefore, they were not practising advocates. It was also held that they were disqualified to be appointed, as they were members of a service under the Union of India. The judgment was rendered on 24.10.2007 and the tests were held as scheduled from 27.10.2007 to 29.10.2007. Thereafter this Writ Appeal is filed on 21.1.2008 with an application to condone the delay of 35 days in filing the same. The delay was condoned by this Court and when the Writ Appeal came up for admission, we heard the learned senior counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar for the appellant and the learned senior counsel Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal for the 1st respondent. 7. In the appeal, the 1st respondent filed a statement and along with that, it has produced Annexure-RI dated 24.1.2001, which is the order appointing the appellant as Public Prosecutor in the C.B.I. The respondent also produced Annexure-RII Central Bureau of Investigation (Legal Advisers and Prosecutors) Recruitment Rules, 2002, Annexure-RIII communication dated 25.2.2008 from the Bar Council of Kerala and Annexure-RIV communication dated 25.2.2008 from the Kerala Advocates' WA 283/2008 5 Welfare Fund Trustee Committee. Annexure-RIII communication would state that any person taking up full time employment as a salaried employee should intimate about the same to the Bar Council, but the appellant has not done so. Annexure-RIV communication would show that since the appellant failed to pay the subscription to the Advocates' Welfare Fund, notice was issued to her on 25.2.2003. In reply to that, on 9.4.2003, she informed the Bar Council that she is not in active practice as an advocate, as she joined the C.B.I., Chennai as Public Prosecutor. 8. The learned senior counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar submitted that the appellant should be treated as a practising advocate, as the term “advocate” is understood under Section 2(1)(a) of the Advocates Act. An advocate receiving salary also should be treated as a practising advocate. Relying on Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules and the decision of the Apex Court in Sushma Suri's case (supra), the learned senior counsel contended that the appellant is a practising lawyer. She is appearing in the robes before the courts of law and is pleading the cases of the C.B.I. So, she should be treated as an advocate, qualified to apply for the post of District and Sessions Judge, like any other advocate. Sri.K.R.B. Kaimal, learned senior counsel, reiterated the contentions of the 1st respondent which are already mentioned above and supported the decision of the learned single WA 283/2008 6 Judge. 9. Annexure-RII is C.B.I. (Legal Advisers and Prosecutors) Recruitment Rules, 2002. It is issued by the President of India, in exercise of the powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, in supersession of the C.B.I. (Additional Legal Adviser) Recruitment Rules, 1984, the C.B.I. (Deputy Legal Adviser) Recruitment Rules, 1975 and the C.B.I. (Prosecutions Staff)) Recruitment Rules, 1980. As per the Recruitment Rules of 2002, the post of Public Prosecutor is a Group A gazetted non-ministerial post in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500. The age limit for appointment is 35 years, which is relaxable for Government Servants. It would show that not only practising advocates, but Government Servants are also eligible for appointment, provided they had a Degree in Law and had seven years' practice at the Bar in conducting criminal cases. The Rules further provide that it is a pensionable service under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Article 309 of the Constitution of India reads as follows: “309. Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State:-- Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State: WA 283/2008 7 Provided that it shall be competent for the President or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act.” The President of India has framed the Recruitment Rules to the post held by the appellant in exercise of the power under the above proviso. So, it is clear that the post of Public Prosecutor in the C.B.I is a post in connection with the affairs of the Union. In other words, the appellant, who is appointed to that post, is a member of the service in connection with the affairs of the Union. Such a person is ineligible to be appointed as a District Judge. The same is clear from Article 233(2), which reads as follows: “233. Appointment of district judges:--(1) ............. (2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the above constitutional bar, the appellant, who is holding a civil post under the Union of India, is barred from being considered for appointment to the post of District Judge. WA 283/2008 8 10. The above legal position will seal the fate of the appellant. The appellant has built up a case, relying on the unamended provisions of Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules. Rule 49 of Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, as it stands now, reads as follows: “49. An advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any person , government, firm, corporation or concern, so long as he continues to practise, and shall, on taking up any employment, intimate the fact to the Bar Council on whose roll his name appears, and shall thereupon cease to practise as an advocate so long as he continues in such employment.” Up to 22.6.2001, the following provisions were also part of the above Rule: “Nothing in this rule shall apply to a Law Officer of the Central Government of a State or of any Public Corporation or body constituted by statute who is entitled to be enrolled under the rules of his State Bar Council made under section 28(2)(d) read with section 24 (1)(e) of the Act despite his being a full time salaried employee. Law Officer for the purpose of this rule means a person who is so designated by the terms appointment and who, by the said terms, is required to act and/or plead in courts on behalf of his employer.” (Emphasis supplied) Interpreting the above deleted portion of Rule 49, Sushma Suri's case was decided by the Apex Court. The said decision was explained by the Apex Court in Satish Kumar Sharma's case [AIR 2001 SC 509]. Considering those decisions, the Division Bench of this Court in Biji v. Registrar, High WA 283/2008 9 Court of Kerala [2001(3) KLT 99] held that an Assistant Public Prosecutor under the Kerala Government is not eligible to apply for the post of Munsiff-Magistrate. We feel that it is unnecessary to refer to the above decisions in detail, since, as per the present rule position, a full time salaried employee is ineligible to be enrolled as an advocate, as defined under Section 2(1)(a) of the Advocates Act, which reads as follows: “ 'advocate' means an advocate entered in any roll under the provisions of this Act.” 11. While practising as an advocate, the appellant joined the service of the Union of India as a full time salaried employee. Therefore, even if she has failed to intimate the Bar Council about her taking up employment and consequently to suspend her enrolment, still she cannot be treated as an advocate on the rolls of the Bar Council of Kerala. A person holding the post now held by the appellant in the C.B.I., is not eligible to be enrolled by the Bar Council of Kerala, unless he resigns from the post. This is evident from the provisions contained in Chapter V of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979. Rule 2 of this Chapter says that the application for enrolment under Section 24 of the Act shall be filed with the Secretary in Form No.2. Column 15 of Form No.2 reads as follows: “State whether the applicant is employed or engaged in any profession, trade or calling on the date of application.” WA 283/2008 10 Column 16 reads as follows: “If he was employed or engaged otherwise, give particulars as to when and where he was relieved from such employment (Relieving order shall be produced).” So, it is evident that the appellant could not have got enrolled, if she moved for enrolment while working as a Public Prosecutor in the C.B.I. This was the position, as explained by the Apex Court in Satish Kumar Sharma's case [AIR 2001 SC 509], even before the amendment to Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules mentioned above. Thus, in any view of the matter, the appellant's application was rightly rejected and the impugned communication Ext.P13 was issued to her validly. We find nothing wrong with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We fully endorse the reasons and conclusions in the judgment under appeal. In the result the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/ WA 283/2008 11