An advocate in full-time employment is not disqualified from participating in the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination under Rule 3(h) of the West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1951, read with Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, if the advocate is employed to act and/or plead in courts of law.

1. Recruitment to the West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial) is governed by the West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1951 (hereafter the Recruitment Rules). In terms of Rule 2 thereof, recruitment shall be made on the basis of a competitive examination conducted by the Public Service Commission, West Bengal (hereafter the P.S.C.). Rule 3 provides for the qualifications which a candidate must possess. Clause (h) thereof ordains that every candidate must be enrolled as an advocate in the roll of Bar Council of any State or Union Territories in India on or before the date of advertisement for examination.

2. By issuing Advertisement No.2 of 2013, the P.S.C. invited applications from eligible candidates for participating in the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, 2013 (hereafter the said examination). Aspiring to be a member of the West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial), the petitioner responded to the advertisement. He obtained the bachelor’s degree in law (five year course) from the University of Calcutta (hereafter the University) in 2010, having been placed in the first class. He had thereafter applied before the Bar Council of West Bengal (hereafter the Council) for enrolment on September 6, 2010, in pursuance whereof he was admitted and enrolled as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) on October 6, 2010. Along with other documents, the petitioner had enclosed with his application the degree awarded by the University and the enrolment certificate issued by the Council.

3. While answering a query in the application form as to whether he is presently employed or not, the petitioner had disclosed that between June 28, 2012 and January 22, 2013, he was in permanent full-time employment as an Associate with Corporate Professionals, New Delhi and from February 18, 2013 onwards, he has been employed on permanent full-time basis as an Associate with Acuity Law, Mumbai. Based on such disclosure, the P.S.C. did not treat him eligible for taking part in the said examination and refused to issue admit card in his favour. This prompted the petitioner to address a representation dated April 26, 2013 to the Chairperson of the P.S.C. Referring to Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules (hereafter the BCI Rules), it was contended that there was erroneous application of the same to debar the petitioner from participating in the said examination. According to the petitioner, the organisations which had employed him were private law firms and he had rendered professional services as an advocate, and by virtue of providing legal services on behalf of the said law firms, he continued to be regulated by the Act and never ceased to be an advocate within the meaning thereof. It was further contended that neither the Act nor the rules/regulations framed thereunder required suspension or withdrawal of enrolment as an advocate while rendering services to a law firm on retainer basis and that a patently unreasonable and wrong interpretation of Rule 49 could not have resulted in his disqualification. Request for reconsideration of the decision rejecting his candidature was prayed for with consequent direction to issue admit card in his favour to enable him compete with others.

4. The Chairperson did not respond. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the P.S.C. in not treating him eligible to take the said examination, the petitioner presented this writ petition on May 8, 2013. In terms of interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner was allowed by the P.S.C. to participate in the preliminary and final written examinations without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The petitioner has acquitted himself creditably in the written examinations and could be called for the interview scheduled to commence from November 18, 2013 i.e. today, provided the writ petition succeeds.

5. The only question that arises for decision on this writ petition is whether the petitioner was rightly