N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to act in accordance with the guidelines in respondent No. 1-Bar Council of India's letter dated 21st September, 2013. It is further prayed to direct the respondents to issue permanent enrolment number to the petitioner in view of decision taken by respondent No. 1 as per its aforementioned letter dated 21st September, 2013. Another prayer was made to direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to grant temporary enrolment number to the petitioner.

1.1 As averred in the first paragraph of the petition, the challenge is directed against the action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not enrolling the petitioner as an advocate despite the decision of respondent No. 1-Bar Council of India reflected in Resolution dated 24th August, 2013 bearing Resolution No. 191 of 2013. Shortly stated, the grievance in the petition is about non-granting of enrolment to the petitioner as an advocate to practice law by the respondents Bar Councils.

2. The issue arises with reference to Rule 49 of Chapter-II Part-6 of the Bar Council of India Rules. In order to address and appreciate the controversy, the said Rule is usefully reproduced at the outset hereinbelow.

"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 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."

2.1 Below the Rule, the following further is stated by way of clarification.

"That as Supreme Court has struck down the appearance by Law Officers in Court even on behalf of their employers the Judgement will operate in the case of all Law Officers. Even if they were allowed to appear on behalf of their employers all such Law Officers who are till now appearing on behalf of their employers shall not be allowed to appear as advocates. The State Bar Council should also ensure that those Law Officers who have been allowed to practice on behalf of their employers will cease to practice. It is made clear that those Law Officers who after joining services obtained enrolment by reason of the enabling provision cannot practice even on behalf their employers."

"That the Bar Council of India is of the view that if the said officer is a whole time employee drawing regular salary, he will no be entitled to be enrolled as an advocate. If the terms of employment show that he is not in full time employment he can be enrolled."

3. Adverting to the facts pleaded in the petition and available from the record of the petition, the petitioner herein having passed out five years integrated course of B.A., LL.B. from Maharaja Sayaji Rao University, Vadodara, got selected during her academic period in campus interview of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and she was given appointment as Legal Consultant also known as legal expert having been so selected. Copy of selection letter dated 19th March, 2012 which is on record, inter alia stated that as per the contract agreement executed between the Corporation and petitioner for taking services of the petitioner as legal expert, petitioner is required to join. It appears that while the petitioner was engaged as Legal Consultant or legal expert with the Corporation, she wanted to get Sanad for practicing in law in the Bar Council of Gujarat-respondent No. 2 herein. It further appears that petitioner was informed that she was required to be given undertaking on affidavit that she is not an employee of any establishment including the Corporation, which is a condition for getting enrolment as an advocate.

3.1 The petitioner applied for enrolment before the Bar Council of Gujarat on 19th June, 2012. As the Enrolment Committee noticed that