https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459347 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. en-us Wed, 21 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Dec 2024 10:49:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459347 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459347