The right to practice law as an advocate is a statutory privilege contingent upon meeting specific legal qualifications, not an absolute fundamental right.

1. Heard Sri Mohan Vinod for the petitioner and Sri A. Sudershan Reddy for the respondent.

2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, N. Ram Reddy, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 15-12-2001 passed by the Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh in returning his application for admission as Advocate on the roll of the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh.

3. The order impugned in this writ petition reads thus :

"With reference to your application cited above, I am to inform you that the Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh at its meeting held on 13-12-2001 has considered your application and passed the following order :

It is stated in the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, that the applicant is stated to be relieved on 6-4-2000. As such the present application in the present form cannot be processed and deserves to be returned as not maintainable. Applicant be informed accordingly.

Therefore, I am herewith returning your application. Kindly acknowledge the receipt of the same."

4. The facts of the case, in brief are as follows : The petitioner was appointed as Inspector of Central Excise in 1978 and was promoted as Superintendent of Central Excise and assumed charge on 9-7-1993. He gave notice of voluntary retirement on 24-7-1998 under R.48 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 to be effective from 1-8-1999. The said notice was not accepted by the department on the ground that charge - sheet issued to him on 31-12-1997 was pending. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 1905 of 1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench praying for setting aside the orders of non - acceptance of his voluntary retirement by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal by its order dated 3-3-2000 ordered that the petitioner is deemed to have retired from service with effect from 31-7-1999. The petitioner relinquished the post of Superintendent of Central Excise on 6-4-2000 on voluntary retirement consequent upon the judgment of the Tribunal dated 3-3-2000. The respondents therein filed a review petition praying for modification of paragraph 33(d) of the judgment in O.A. No. 1905 of 1999 relating to issue of a fresh charge memo. The respondents did not contest the order of petitioner's deemed retirement from 31-7-1999. The Tribunal by an order dated 27-6-2000 in R.A. No. 41 of 2000 in O.A. No. 1905 of 1999 modified the order passed in O.A. No. 1905 of 1999 in paragraph 33(d) and ordered that the existing charge - sheet issued to the petitioner should be processed and a final decision be taken within six months from the date of receipt of order by the respondents in the O.A. The order of the Tribunal that the petitioner is deemed to have retired from service on 31-7-1999 has become final.

5. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 14152 of 2000 in this Court to quash the order in O.A. No. 1905 of 1999 of the Tribunal, in so far as paragraph 31 is concerned, directing the respondents therein to appropriate the salary and emoluments paid to the petitioner from the deemed date of retirement i.e. 1-8-1999 till the date of relief on 6-4-2000 towards provisional pension. This Court allowed the writ petition and clarified that the pensionary and other terminal benefits payable to him shall be computed on the basis that the petitioner retired from service on 31-7-1999.

6. The petitioner on 4-12-2001 submitted an application to the Bar Council of State of Andhra Pradesh. He opted for enrolment on 6-12-2001. He submitted the law degree, date of birth certificate, date of relief and the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1905 of 1999 and the judgment in Writ Petition