S. Sarwar Ali, J.

This is an application for quashing the order contained in Annexure 1. By this order the Bihar Public Service Commission intimated to the petitioner that his application for appearing at the 16th Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination, 1975, has been rejected as he was not eligible to appear at that examination. The petitioner further prays that the Commission-foresaid be directed to permit the petitioner to appear at the examination which was commencing from 26.12.1975. At the time of admission, an order was passed permitting the petitioner to sit at the aforesaid examination, but it was directed that the result of the petitioner should not be published during the pendency of the application.

2. Facts which are either not disputed or established on the basis of the affidavits that have been filed in this case may be compactly stated. They are as follows;

The petitioner was enrolled as an advocate on 27.3.1973. He started regularly practising at Patna from that date. On 1.9.1975, he was appointed as an Assistant Public Prosecutor by the Government of Bihar. Immediately on his appointment, he started receiving training in the Public Training College at Hazaribagh, which, it appears, also imparts training to those who are newly appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutors. An advertisement was published by the Commission on 1.10.1975 in relation to holding of the 16th Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination, 1975, and inviting applications for the same. In response to the advertisement, the petitioner applied for One of the posts on 20.10.1975. The examination was to commence on 26.12.1975 but by the impugned annexure dated 5.12.1975, the petitioner was told that he could not appear at the examination. In the writ application it is stated that a certificate of the District Judge, Patna was filed by the petitioner along with his application showing that he was a practising advocate at the Patna District Court.

3. The ground on which the Commission appears to have decided that the petitioner was not eligible for appearing at the examination is that in the view of the Commission, the petitioner did not have one year continuous standing at the Bar on the date of advertisement.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the Commission had taken an erroneous view of the legal position in thin king that the petitioner was not entitled to appear at the examination. It will be necessary before dealing with the contention at some length to set out the relevant rules of the Bar Council of India Rules and of the Bihar State Bar Council.

5. The Bar Council of India Rule, 1975, have been made under the rules making powers conferred by the Advocates Act, 1961. Chapter II deals with "standards of professional conduct and etiquette" and section VII relates "restrictions on other employments". Rule 44 of this section is to the following effects :-

"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 such 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.

Nothing in this rule shall apply to a Law Officer of the Central Government or the Government of a State or of any public Corp-oration 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".

In terms of these rules, it would be necessary to refer now to the Bihar State Bar Council Rules. The relevant rule relating to the condition subject to which a person may be admitted on the State roll is as follows :-

"A person who is otherwise qualified to be admitted as an Advocate but is either in full or part-time service or employment or is engaged in any tr