( 1 ) BOTH the matters are taken up for final hearing today and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) WHETHER an advocate practising in the District Court or even in the Labour or Industrial Court is eligible to be appointed to the post of Member, Industrial Court and whether such an advocate can be described as "an advocate of the High Court" is the question which is required to be decided in the present petitions.

( 3 ) SO far as special civil application No. 5859 of 2001 is concerned, the same is filed by Mr. Mansuri, who appears as party-in-person, and so far as special civil application No. 11372 of 2001 is concerned, the same is filed by two petitioners, namely, Mr. K. K. Trivedi and Mr. A. R. Trivedi. All the aforesaid petitioners are practising advocates. It is not in dispute that they are enrolled as the advocates by the State Bar Council. It is also not in dispute that each of the aforesaid petitioners is on the State Roll of the Bar Council since last more than 10 years. So far as the petitioner of special civil application No. 5859 of 2001 is concerned, as per the averments made in the petition, he is a practising lawyer since July 1988 and the certificate of enrollment is annexed with the petition at Annexure-A. The said certificate is granted by the Bar Council of Gujarat and accordingly he is on the roll of the State Bar Council. So far as petitioner no. 1 of special civil application No. 11372 of 2001 is concerned, he is enrolled as an advocate on 14. 7. 1983 and the certificate to that effect issued by the Bar Council of Gujarat is annexed with the petition as Annexure-D and as per the same, he is practising since 14. 7. 1983. So far as petitioner No. 2 of the said petition is concerned, he is also enrolled as an advocate on the roll of the State Bar Council and the certificate to that effect is also annexed with the petition. Accordingly, all the aforesaid petitioners are practising advocates since more than 10 years.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the Gujarat Public Service Commission, a public advertisement was issued on 16. 12. 2000, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Member, Industrial Court. The said advertisement is annexed at Annexure-B in the first petition. The said advertisement is common and each of the petitioners has applied for the said post in response to the said advertisement.

( 5 ) SO far as the petitioner of special civil application No. 5859 of 2001 is concerned, he was informed by the Deputy Secretary of the GPSC, by letter dated 9. 7. 2001, that he is not selected by the Commission for interview on account of the fact that he is not possessing the prescribed experience. So far as petitioners of special civil application no. 11372 of 2001 are concerned, they were also given similar type of reply, by communication dated 9. 7. 2001, wherein it is stated that they are not possessing the prescribed experience. The petitioners of special civil application No. 11372 of 2001 thereafter, made representations for reconsidering their case by pointing out that they are practising advocates since 1983 and that one of them was, in fact, selected and was kept in the wait list in the past. However, by order dated 14. 8. 2001, the petitioners were informed that since they are not having requisite experience as practising advocates in the High Court since last 10 years, their prayer cannot be accepted. The said communications are annexed with the petition at page nos. 11 and 12.

( 6 ) BOTH the aforesaid petitions are filed, challenging the aforesaid decision of the GPSC. The GPSC is of the opinion that the petitioners do not have any experience of practising as advocates in the High Court, and on that ground, they were not eligible for consideration. At the time of admitting these petitions, interim orders were also passed by this court, by which the GPSC is directed to process the application of the concerned petitioners on merits and not to reject the same on the g