( 1 ) SRI Iqbal Ahmad, who has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, was practising as an Advocate in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad when, in the year 1932 he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court. Later on he was appointed a Puisne judge of the High Court in 1933 and at the time of his appointment he gave an undertaking to the following effect :

"i undertake also that I will not, after retirement assume practice in the High Court to which I am appointed or to which I may be transferred, or in any of the courts subordinate thereto, provided that neither my salary nor right to leave and pension is varied to my disadvantage nor a further cut imposed during my tenure of office. " he remained on the Bench of the Allahabad High Court for a number of years and during that period he was appointed Chief Justice from which post he retired in the year 1946. In the year 1947 he go", himself enrolled an Advocate of the Chief Court in Oudh. on the 26th of July, 1948, while he was on the roll of Advocates of the Chief Court in Oudh the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order (hereinafter referred to as the Order) came into force and by the said order the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Chief Court in Oudh were amalgamated; and a new High Court was constituted, though the name given to the new High court was the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was also the name of the erstwhile high Court at Allahabad. Sub-clause (2) of Clause (8) of the Order provided as follows : "the right of audience shall be regulated in accordance with the like principles, as, immediately before the appointed day, are in force with respect to the right of audience in the High Court in allahabad : provided that subject to any rule made or direction given by the new High Court in the exercisc of the powers conferred by this Article, any person who, immediately before the appointed day, is an Advocate entitled to practise or an attorney entitled to act in either of the existing High courts, shall be recognised as an Advocate or an attorney entitled to practise or to act, as the case may be, in the new High Court. "

A second proviso was added to this sub-clause on 4th November, 1948, to the following effect : provided further that notwithstanding the amalgamation of the existing High Courts all undertakings given by persons who have held office as Judges of either of the existing High courts or of the new High Court not to practise as Advocates within the jurisdiction of either of the existing High Courts, shall be deemed to continue in force and the Chief Justice shall issue directions prohibiting from practise as Advocates such persons to such extent as may be appropriate having regard to the terms of the undertaking and for this purpose the said undertaking shall be construed as applicable to the new High Court. "

( 2 ) IN exercise of the powers contained in the second proviso the Chief Justice of the new High court issued a direction on the 25th November, 1948, to the following effect :

"the Chief Justice is pleased to direct that ex-Judges of the High Court of Judicature at allahabad before its amalgamation with the Chief Court who gave an undertaking not to practise within the jurisdiction of that Court shall not appear before the Benches of the High Court sitting at Allahabad and in the subordinate courts in the 37 districts which were under the jurisdiction of "he High Court of Judicature at Allahabad before the 26th July, 1948 and the ex-Judges of the oudh Chief Court who gave an undertaking not to practise within the jurisdiction of that Court, shall not appear before the Benches of the High Court sitting at Lucknow and in the subordinate courts in the 12 districts which were under the jurisdiction of the Oudh Chief Court hefore 26th july, 1948. "

In the year 1949 the petitioner applied for permission to appear and argue a criminal appeal pending before a Bench of the