R.S.Garg, J.

1. This writ Application has been filed by Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, an Advocate practising in this Court for the following reliefs,--

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ declaring sec. 16(1)(2) and (3) of the Advocates Act, 1961 as ultra vires the Constitution of India.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ declaring Para-A of Chapter-XXIV of the Patna High Court Rules, 1916 as ultra vires the Constitution of India.

(iii) For issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.12.2004 (contained in Annexure-1) in so far as it relates to designation of Mr. Vikas Singh, the respondent as Senior Advocate, (iv) For issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the High Court the respondent to designate all those Advocates as Senior whose applications for designation have been arbitrarily rejected even though they are as able, experienced and knowledgeable as those whose name appears in the impugned order.

2. At the very inception we must record that so far as the reliefs claimed in sub-para (iv) of para-1 are concerned, by order dated 19.1.2005 after detailing our reasons we made it clear that we will not hear the petitioner in relation to the reliefs as claimed in sub-para (iv) of para-1 of the writ petition as it originally stood or as it stood after amendment brought under I.A No. 305/2005.

3. The petitioner says that sec. 16(1) (2) & (3) of the Advocates Act, 1961 are ultra vires the Constitution of India; he also seeks a writ of declaration that para-A of Chapter XXIV of the Patna High Court Rules, 1916 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and a relief is sought against one Mr. Vikash Singh, who has been declared as Senior Advocate that the notification issued in his favour be quashed.

4. In support of the Writ Application the petitioner has submitted that the Parliament had no competence to classify the advocates as superiors by designating them as seniors and leave rest of the advocates in the inferior category. It is submitted that sec. 16 of the Advocates Act and the Patna High Court Rules relating to designation of Senior Advocate to not provide any guidelines and give unbridled powers to the Judges of the High Court acting in their administrative capacity. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said provisions do not contain any eligibility criteria for designation of an advocate as Senior Advocate except that he has standing of 10 years. It is also the submission of the petitioner that sec. 16 of the Patna High Court Rules is not properly crafted but is using the vague terms like ability, experience, standing, deserving and ordinarily practising within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court. It is the submission of the petitioner that the vagueness is writ large in the High Court Rules and it opens the scope for nepotism, favouritism and leaves the decision to be arrived at by personal gains and fancies. The submission is that the process laid down in Part-A of Chapter XXIV of the Patna High Court Rules tends to create a class within the class without any rational basis and without any nexus for any conceivable object to be achieved. The petitioner has submitted that the order of the High Court contained in Annexure-1 is absolutely arbitrary and is based on considerations of intimacy and personal relationship of the beneficiary with the Judges and as such Annexure-1 is an extreme instance of favouritism. Lastly it is submitted that applications of number of the persons had been rejected because they had no intimacy with the Judges or they could not effectively lobby for favourable considerations by the Judges.

5. Referring to Rule 1 of Part-A of Chapter XXIV, it is submitted that the words ability, experience and standing at the Bar are such which would not lead to any positive result and in fact would leave everything in the hands of the Judges and the Judges would select the persons, who are most suited to them and as such the Rule would leave much scope for nepotism