Full-time salaried employment bars advocate enrolment where contractual terms show service-like engagement, not a mere retainer arrangement.

A legal consultant's contract was found to be full-time salaried employment because it required office attendance, fixed monthly remuneration and other service-like conditions, bringing her within Rule 49 of Chapter II, Part 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules. Since an advocate cannot continue in full-time salaried employment while practising, she was disentitled to enrolment and a certificate of practice. The enrolment authority was also bound by the Bar Council of India's opinion under the Advocates Act. The court held that the contractual reality, not the tax deduction mechanism, controlled the enrolment question, and dismissed the challenge to refusal of enrolment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's engagement as a Legal Consultant under a contract with Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation amounted to full-time salaried employment so as to attract Rule 49 of Chapter-II Part-6 of the Bar Council of India Rules and disentitle her from enrolment and certificate of practice as an advocate.

Analysis: The petitioner's contract required attendance during standard office hours, fixed monthly remuneration, and contained other service-like conditions, indicating a continuing full-time engagement rather than a mere professional retainer arrangement. Under Rule 49, an advocate cannot be a full-time salaried employee and must cease to practise so long as such employment continues. The enrolment authority was also bound by the opinion of the Bar Council of India under Section 26(2) and Section 26(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961. On the facts, the contractual terms and the nature of the engagement showed that the petitioner fell within the mischief of Rule 49. The manner of tax deduction could not change the character of the employment for enrolment purposes.

Conclusion: The petitioner's engagement was held to be a full-time salaried employment and she was not entitled to enrolment or certificate of practice as an advocate.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal of enrolment failed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of enrolment under the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules, the real character of the engagement, judged from its contractual terms and working conditions, determines whether a person is a full-time salaried employee barred by Rule 49.

---