1. - The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to the learned District Judge, Jodhpur (respondent No. 3) to issue the Certificate of Standing in the Profession to the petitioner treating her to be in Practice since 16.7.1997.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner, after getting her Degree in Law from Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur in the year 1997, undertook her training as a Trainee Advocate with effect from 16.7.1997 and subsequently, on completion of the training and production of document to that effect, she was enrolled as an Advocate by the State Bar Council on 13.8.1998 though one year's training stood completed on 15.7.1998. During the course of training, petitioner also attended the Courts. She attended chamber of her guide, attended Courts, drafted petition and prepared cases and assisted her guide in the Courts at Jodhpur. To this effect, she has filed the certificate. Respondent No. 2, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, vide advertisement dated 17.5.2001 (Annx. 2), advertised the vacancies on the post of Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate under the provisions of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 (for short, "the Rules, 1955"). The last date for submitting such an application was 30.7.2001. One of the eligibility required in the said advertisement was that the applicant must have three years' 'experience and for that purpose, the candidate should produce a certificate issued by the District Judge. Petitioner applied in pursuance of the same; however, the respondent No. 3 issued the certificate dated 20.6.2001 (Annx. 4) that petitioner had been registered as a trainee with effect from 16.7.1997 and she has been registered as an Advocate on 13.8.1998 and she is practising from 5.12.1998. The said certificate did not fulfil the requirement of eligibility as provided under the advertisement. Hence this petition.

3. By an interim order, she was permitted to appear provisionally in the R.J.S. Examination. She has been declared as a successful candidate in the written examination and has been called for interview.

4. The only question involved in this case is whether petitioner can be held to be eligible as having three years' experience or not ? The rules requiring pre-enrolment training, framed by the Bar Council of India in 1996, were struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, AIR 1999 SC 1167 . Undoubtedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that the said judgment will come into operation with prospective effect. That direction relates to under-going the training only. The said judgment has been delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.3.1999. There are certain documents prior to that date, particularly the letter issued by the Bar Council of India on 15.12.1998 (Annx. 9) to show that the period spent by a trainee shall be treated as part of his practice; the relevant part of which reads as under:

"Period of training from .......to..... is to be treated as legal practice and he/she is deemed to be advocate for all intends and purposes of the Advocates Act, 1961."

5. The same issue has been dealt with by the Delhi High Court in Sanjiv Gupta v. High Court of Delhi, 2000(8) DLT 609 , wherein it has been held that for counting the period of experience, the period spent on training is required to be considered. It has been observed as under:

"One has to see the nature of training that a Trainee Advocate is required to undergo. Rule 8 of the Training Rules reads as follows : "During the period of training the candidate shall regularly attend the chamber or office of the guide, study case papers, correspondence, draft pleadings, attend courts and in particular study cases with a view to get acquainted with the practice in Courts and minimum attendance for 225 days in all in Courts and chambers in an year shall be a condition precedent for the successful completion of training."

A Trainee advocate