N. Kirubakaran, J.

1. This case is only a tip of an iceberg, which reveals how full-time salaried employees/ staff are working and simultaneously undergoing Law Degree Course elsewhere. The petitioner herein, is a person, who was working as a full-time Government employee, i.e. as a Junior Engineer in Agricultural Engineering Department, Thanjavur, from 17.03.1966 to 31.10.2001 and who was able to obtain a law degree, as if he had undergone the course from 1998-2001, as a regular student in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia College of Law, Bangalore University, Bangalore. He joined the Department in the year 1966 and superannuated in the year 2001. After retirement, the petitioner applied for enrolment with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. He had categorically stated in column No. 11(a) about his employment details. Therefor, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, rightly, raised a query as to how, he was able to undergo the Law Course during 1998 to 2001, especially, when he was employed as a Junior Engineer in Thanjavur, by communication dated 17.10.2002. He filed an affidavit stating that he applied for leave and availed loss of pay to attend regular college during 1999 and 2001. However, no details were furnished to prove that he availed leave on loss of pay and attended the course. Therefore, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu sent a communication dated 17.10.2002 to the petitioner to produce all documents before the Enrolment Committee to show that he attended classes regularly, after availing leave on loss of pay and that such leave was sanctioned to him. However, no details were furnished. Hence, by order dated 13.05.2003, the Enrolment Committee of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu was of the opinion that there was no proof to establish the number of days on which the petitioner had attended classes by applying for leave, with particulars of sanction of leave, the number of days, etc. and that it is a doubtful case regarding the studies at Bangalore and therefore, the Enrolment Committee rejected the application and resolved to refer the same to the Bar Council of India. On reference by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, with regard to the rejection of the petitioner's application for enrolment, the Bar Council of India, on 14/15 June, 2003, passed a resolution directing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to give an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the authentic records from the University that he attended college for requisite number of days and obtained degree of law, by availing leave on loss of pay and that such leave was sanctioned to him and if such documents are produced and the genuineness of the same is accepted by the Enrolment Committee, then the Enrolment Committee to take appropriate action. The said decision was communicated to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu vide communication dated 21.06.2003. Subsequently, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, wrote to the petitioner on 21.06.2004 to produce the documents, as stated above. However, the petitioner did not produce the details sought by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. Thereafter, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the Enrolment Rules of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, as communicated by Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, vide Roc No. 561/2006 dated 24.07.2006.

2. Heard the petitioner appearing as party in person, Mr. Subash Babu, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Mr. Mahaboob Athiff, learned counsel for R3 and Mr. Prabu Rajadurai, learned counsel for R4.

3. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the Enrolment Rules framed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu were not approved by the Bar Council of India and were not laid before the Parliament or the State Assembly and the Rules were not published either in the Central Government Gazette or in the State Government Gazette. Further, he would submit that the exercise of enrolment of advocates should be taken over by the High Court of Madras as per Section 58(1) of the Advocates' Act, 1961.

4. Learned counse