JUDGMENT O.H. Mootham, C.J. - We have before us today an objection by the Bar Council to the admission of Sri Tejasvi Prasad Bhalla as an Advocate in this Court. 2. Rule 1 of the Rules made by the Bar Council under Sec. 9 of the Indian Bar Councils Act states generally the qualifications for enrolment as Advocate, but to this rule there are a number of provisos of which the first, so far as it is relevant, reads thus : "Provided, firstly, that a person who is a graduate in law..... may be admitted to the Roll of Advocates (if)..... (c) he has held judicial offices for more than ten years in British India, Dominion of India or India, as the case may be; ...." 3. It is Sri Bhalla's contention that he fulfils the requirements of this proviso. 4. Sri Bhalla was appointed to the Indian Police in the year 1923 and he rose to the high office of Inspector General of Police, U.P. in January 1953. This office he held until October 1954. Prior to being appointed Inspector General of Police he had acted as the Provincial Transport Commissioner as a Member of the Air Transport Licensing Board and as Director-General, Civil Aviation, India. After his retirement as Inspector General of Police Sri Bhalla was appointed a Member of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Com-mission, an appointment which he held from January 1955 to January 1959. His submission is that as in the course of his duties in the various offices which he had held he had from time to time to perform duties which were of a judicial nature he can properly be said to have held 'judicial office' within the meaning of Cl. (c) of the proviso to R. 1, and, as he had performed such duties for a period exceeding ten years, he is qualified for enrolment. The meaning of the expression 'Judicial Office' was considered by this Court in In the matter of enrolment of Shri H. P. Chaudhari. In that case the Court held that these words as used in CI. (c) to the proviso to R. 1 referred exclusively to members of a judicial service. The meaning of the expression 'Judicial Office' was considered by this Court in In the matter of enrolment of Shri H. P. Chaudhari. In that case the Court held that these words as used in CI. (c) to the proviso to R. 1 referred exclusively to members of a judicial service. Shri T.P. Bhalla has suggested that this Court in Shri H.P. Chaudhari's case' placed an unduly narrow interpretation on the Phrase "Judicial office." With this view we are however unable to agree, and we are not satisfied that we should be justified in referring that decision to a larger bench for further consideration. 5. Shri Bhalla then contended that even though he may not possess the qualifications which would entitle him to enrolment under the Rules made by the Bar Council, this Court has nevertheless the power to admit him as an Advocate of the Court if it thinks it proper to do so. Mr. Bhalla has placed much reliance on the provisions of clauses (7) and (8) of the Letters Patent dated the 17th March, 1866, constituting the old High Court at Allahabad. By these clauses the High Court was authorised and empowered to admit and enrol such and so many Advocates, Vakils and Attorneys as it deemed fit, and there is no doubt that the new High Court continues to possess the powers vested in the old High Court by virtue of Cl. (8) of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. The power possessed by the High Court to enrol Advocates conferred upon it by the Letters Patent must however be read in conjunction with the provisions of Secs. 9 (I) and 19 (2) of the Bar Councils Act, 1926. Sec. 9 (1) provides that "9 (1). The Bar council may, with the previous sanction of the High Court, make rules to regulate the admission of persons to be advocates of the High Court: Provided that such rules shall not limit or in any way affect the power of the High Court to refuse admission to any person at its discretion." 6. Sec. 19 (2) then provides that "(2). When Secs. Sec. 19 (2) then provides that "(2). When Secs. 8 to 16 come into force in respect of any High Court of Judicature established by Letters Patent, this Act shall have effect in respect of such Court notwithstanding anything contained in such Letters Patent, and such Letters Patent shall, in so far as they are inconsistent with this Act or any rules made there-under, be deemed to have been repealed." The position therefore is that the Bar Council has, with the previous sanction of this Court, made rules regulating the ad-mission of persons to be Advocates of the Court; and we think it to be sufficiently clear that the proviso to Sec. 9 (1) of the Act, which reserves to the Court an unfettered power to refuse admission to an person at its discretion, by implication shows that this Court can no longer admit as an Advocate a person who is not qualified for admission under the rules made under Sec. 9. 7. Shri T. P. Bhalla invited our attention to a passage at p. 111 of the Report of the case of Pramesh Chandra Gupta v. The Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, 1955 A.L.J. R. 105 in which a Full Bench of this Court expressed the opinion that the Rules made by the Bar Council were merely directory. That case however was a somewhat unusual one. The question before the Court was whether in the absence of a Bar Council it was within the power of the High Court to enrol Advocates, the obstacle to their enrolment being the inability of the Registrar to comply with Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules which required him to serve upon the Secretary of the Bar Council a copy of every application for enrolment and which entitled the Bar Council to prefer an objection to the enrolment. The Court pointed out that there is a distinction between the jurisdiction to enrol a candidate as an advocate and the procedure to be followed in making the enrolment and we think that the Court's opinion that the Rules were directory only had reference only to those rules regulating the procedure to be followed particularly Rules 4 and 5. 8. The Court pointed out that there is a distinction between the jurisdiction to enrol a candidate as an advocate and the procedure to be followed in making the enrolment and we think that the Court's opinion that the Rules were directory only had reference only to those rules regulating the procedure to be followed particularly Rules 4 and 5. 8. We were also referred to the decision of the Patna High Court in M. Abdul Towheed v. The Patna High Court Bar Council, AIR 1957 Patna 610 That was a case in which the High Court had directed that a retired officer of police should be enrolled as an Advocate of the Court. The High Court however acted under a particular rule of the Rules framed by the Patna High Court Bar Council which specifically empowered the Court, in special cases and after consultation with the Bar Council, to exempt any candidate from all or any of the requirements of the Rules. There is no similar provision to be found in the Rules framed by the Bar Council of the Allahabad High Court. 9. We accordingly are of opinion that Shri T. P. Bhalla is not at present qualified for enrolment as an Advocate and we up hold the objection of the Bar Council.