Full-time legal consultancy barred continued practice, and recruitment eligibility had to match the notification's specified allied departments.

An advocate engaged by GIDC on terms requiring regular office attendance, fixed monthly remuneration, and conditions consistent with a full-time arrangement fell within the prohibition in Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, so continued enrolment and certificate of practice were not available during that engagement. The claimed entitlement to compete in civil judge recruitment under the category for persons working in courts or allied departments also failed because the notification was confined to specified departments and GIDC was not included. The challenge to the refusal of enrolment and the request to participate in the recruitment were therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's engagement by GIDC as a legal consultant amounted to full-time employment attracting Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules and disentitling her from enrolment and certificate of practice. (ii) Whether the appellant, while working with GIDC, was entitled to participate in the civil judge recruitment as a candidate working in the courts or allied departments.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's engagement by GIDC as a legal consultant amounted to full-time employment attracting Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules and disentitling her from enrolment and certificate of practice.

Analysis: The terms of engagement required regular attendance during standard office hours, contemplated fixed monthly remuneration, and imposed conditions consistent with a full-time arrangement. On that basis, the engagement was treated as full-time employment within the meaning of Rule 49. The decision of the Bar Council authorities, supported by the committee's opinion, was upheld as consistent with the prohibition against a practising advocate being a full-time salaried employee.

Conclusion: The appellant was held to be hit by Rule 49 and was not entitled to enrolment and certificate of practice while continuing in that engagement.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant, while working with GIDC, was entitled to participate in the civil judge recruitment as a candidate working in the courts or allied departments.

Analysis: The recruitment notification confined eligibility under the relevant category to persons working in courts or specified allied departments. GIDC was not one of the specified allied departments, and the appellant had not challenged the governing recruitment rules. The claimed extension of the category to her posting could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to participate in the recruitment process under the allied-department category.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal of enrolment and the request for permission to participate in the civil judge recruitment both failed, leaving the impugned order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An advocate who is engaged on terms amounting to full-time employment and subject to regular office hours falls within the prohibition in Rule 49 and cannot continue to practise, and eligibility for a recruitment category must strictly conform to the express terms of the governing notification.

---