Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is a lawyer practising in the High Court of Jharkhand and he has prayed for following reliefs in this petition:-

"A. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction commanding the respondent No. 1 recall its order issued on administrative side wherein restricted/selected category of advocates have been given passes for the entry of their vehicle inside the court campus whereas other advocates are not allowed to park their vehicle inside the campus of Hon'ble High Court being discriminatory and creation of class within a class is de hors the object and beyond the object.

B. For a declaration that the Rule 210 of Jharkhand High Cour1t Rules, is ultra vires rule making power under Section 34 of Advocates Act, 1961 as the power to make rule for prescribing the manner of seniority amongst advocates lies with the Bar Council of India, u/s 49(ae) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

C. For a declaration that Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in required to follow the Rule for disposed of cases namely Jharkhand High Court (Flow of Management) of Cases Rule, 2006 for which specific representation was given but was of no avail.

D. For further declaration that a transparency is required to be made in the process of recommendation of names of advocates for being elevated as a Judge of High Court being an administrative decision, must have predictable parameter like any other executive division particularly when most of its recommendation sent in past 8 years has returned back, resulting in non-filling of vacancy in Bar quota."

3. In this petition, the reliefs mentioned above clearly indicate that there appears to be a reasonable ground for having different categories of advocates by giving them designation as Senior Advocate by the High Court, which will certainly beneficial to Bar also and the Bar members, who are new may know the basic rule of law about mis-joinder of cause of action, mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties and relevance of facts in the matter etc. In this petition, petitioner, a practising lawyer, after mixing up several issues which are totally unconnected even questioned why the senior advocates have been given entry pass for their vehicles to park in the Court campus and why such facilities also has given to the members of the State Bar Council. It appears that the petitioner has raised grievance without finding out total area available for parking in the High Court premises. In addition to the above, the petitioner also challenged the vires of Rule 210 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001 empowering the High Court to designate Senior Advocate as, according to the petitioner, the same is ultra vires to the rule making power under Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and also under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. As according to the petitioner, such power to make rule for prescribing the manner of seniority amongst advocates lies with the Bar Council of India under Section 49(1)(ae) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Then petitioner in this very writ petition has grievance that Jharkhand High Court Case Flow Management in the High Court Rules, 2006 are not being given effect to and in the same petition he also has objection with respect to the non-transparency in the matter of process of recommendation of names of advocates for being elevated as a Judge of High Court.

4. Though, there are prayers as referred above, in the petition, at page 9 of sub-para 2 of para 7, there is a submission that without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the High Court at Calcutta may make rules providing for the holding of intermediate and the Final examinations for Advocate Clerks to be passed by the persons referred to in Section 58AG for the purpose of being admitted as advocates on the State roll any other matter connected with it.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this para is only an inadvertent typing mistake.

6. Be t