JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J.- The petitioner after passing LLB. in 1975-76 got appointed as Assistant (Legal) by the H.P State Electricity Board (here-in-after referred to as “the Board"), The post was re-designated as Taw-Officer Grade-II’ in 1978, By office order dated 6-9-1983 the Board allowed him to act as an Advocate of the Board and also ordered that the expenditure on account of his getting a licence from the Bar Council shall be borne by the Board, His application for enrolment was forwarded by the Secretary of the Board to the respondent on 13-10-1983. By a letter dated 28-3-1994 the Secretary of the respondent informed the Secretary of the Board that the office order dated 6-9-1983 of the Board did not meet the requirements of the Rules and that he should first be designated as a Law Officer. The addressee was also requested to send the order of appointment and the terms of such appointment. On 11-6-1984 the Board passed an office order modifying the earlier order dated 6-9-1983 and declared the petitioner as Law Officer of the Board Thereafter on 5-7-1984 another office order was passed whereby the designation of the post of Law Officer Grade II was changed as Law Officer. The second paragraph of the said office order reads as follows : "By virtue of this appointment Shri Satish Kumar Sharma shall be required to act and plead in any Court of Law, on behalf of the H.P. State Electricity Board.” On receipt of the said communication the respondent issued a certificate of enrolment to the petitioner bearing date 9-7-1984. 2. By office order dated 8-5-1991, the petitioner was given ad hoc promotion to the post of Under Secretary (Legal)-cum-Law Officer the order also stated that he will continue to work in the Legal Cell of the Boards Secretariat. By a further order dated 14-1-1993 the petitioner was promoted as Under Secretary (Legal) cum-Law Officer on officiating basis. 3. The respondent by its communication dated 13-9-1993 called upon the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 28-9-1993 alongwith all connected documents/evidence in regard to his enrolment as Advocate, According to the communication, in its meeting held on 10-7-1993 the respondent had considered the matter regarding enrolment of certain Law Officers and decided to constitute a Committee to examine the matter. The respondent sent a further communication on 27-12-1993 requiring the petitioner to show-cause as to why his enrolment No. H1M/35/1984 issued to him to be not withdrawn. The reply was to reach the respondents office by 3012-1993 4. The petitioner requested for grant of one months time to put-forth his claim By a letter dated 11-1-1994 the respondent required the petitioner to file his reply to reach its office by 4th of February, 1994. The petitioner got further extension of time and sent a communication on 25-2-1994 stating that there was no ground for withdrawal of his enrolment. He reserved his right to file a detailed reply in case the grounds oh which the notice for withdrawal had been issued to him were disclosed. He also stated that he would like to be represented by an Advocate. 5. By office order dated 30-1-1995 the Board promoted the petitioner as Deputy Secretary (Legal) cum-Law Officer on ad hoc basis. He was required to continue to work in the Legal Cell of the Boards Secretariat. 6. In a meeting held on 12-5-1996 the respondent passed a Resolution unanimously withdrawing the enrolment of the petitioner with immediate effect and he was ordered to surrender the enrolment certificate within 15 days therefrom. The relevant part of the Repopulation reads as follows : “……………… Shri Satish Sharma is a permanent employee of the HPSEB and presently he is holding the post of Deputy Secretary in the HPSEB and is in continuous employment of the HPSEB and under Rule 49 he is debarred to be an Advocate, Morever, he was enrolled as an Advocate initially when he was appointed as Law Officer. Thereafter he had been getting promotions and working an Assistant Secretary/Deputy Secretary in the HPSEB. In fact he was required to intimate the said fact to the Bar Council immediately on promotion and should have surrendered the licence but he failed to do so. Under these circumstances there is no justification to retain Shri v Satish Sharma on the Roll of the Bar Council as an Advocate, It is, thus, resolved that the Enrolment No. HIM/45/1984 be and is hereby withdrawn with immediate effect and he is ordered to surrender his Enrolment Certificate within a period of 15 days." 7. The Resolution had also extracted Rules 47 to 49 of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India. The Resolution had also extracted Rules 47 to 49 of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India. It is seen from the Resolution that certain Law Officers of the Board and Shimla Development Authority had applied for the enrolment as Advocates and in its meeting held on 21-4-1991 the respondent had considered and rejected the said applications. There of the Law Officers of the Board had filed a joint Review Petition to the respondent and brought to the notice of the respondent that the petitioner had been enrolled as an Advocate in 1984, Thereafter the respondent considered the matter after giving sufficient opportunities to all the persons concerned including the petitioner, 8. It is the said Resolution of the respondent which is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. According to the petitioner the enrolment was validly granted to him as he fulfilled the requirements of relevant provisions of the Act. It is contended that there is no bar to his being enrolled under the provisions of section 24 or 28 of the Advocates Act, The petitioner has also pointed out that the Advocates who obtained enrolment and later on joined State Government service in the prosecution Department have continued to retain their enrolment and defend the State Government in the Courts. It is also argued that no Rules having been framed by the respondent preventing persons like the petitioner from getting enrolled, it is not open to the respondent to withdraw the petitioners certificate of enrolment According to the petitioner, Rule 49 of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India has been misconstrued and mis-understood by the respondent. In short, it is contended that the respondent has no jurisdiction to withdraw the enrolment certificate granted to the petitioner, 9. It is not in dispute before us that the State Bar Council, that is, the respondent has not framed any rule under the provisions of the Advocates Act Before we consider the merits of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Act and the relevant rules framed by the Bar Council of India. Section 24 sets out the conditions to be fulfilled by a person to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll. The section is, however, to the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Section 24 sets out the conditions to be fulfilled by a person to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll. The section is, however, to the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Under that section apart from the conditions set out in clauses (a) (b), (c) and (f) clauses (e) provides that the person concerned should fulfil such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made by the State Bar Council under the Chapter. Section 24 occurs in Chapter III. As stated earlier, no rule has been framed by the State Bar Council However, under subsection (1) of section 24, the provisions of the said section are subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder 10. Section 24-A relates to disqualification for enrolment. That section has no applicability in the present case. Section 26 provides for disposal of applications for admissions as an advocate under subsection (1), every application for admission as an advocate shall be referred to the enrolment committee of the State Bar Council. Under subjection (2), if the said committee proposes to refuse any application, it shall refer the same for opinion to the Bar Council of India. Sub-section (3) is to the effect that the said committee shall dispose of the application in conformity with the opinion of the Bar Council of India. Section 28 empowers the State Bar Council to make rules to carry out the purposes of Chapter III Sub-section (2). of the section sets out certain matters with reference to which rules may provide Clause (d) of subsection (2) empowers the State Bar Council to frame rules providing the conditions subject to which a person may be admitted as an advocate on any such roll Sub-section (3) reads that no rules made under that Chapter shall have effect unless they have been approved by the Bar Council of India. 11. 11. Section 29 shows that from the appointed day, that is, the day on which the relevant provisions of the Act come into force, there shall be only one class of persons entitled to practise the profession of law, namely, advocates Section 30 deals with the right of advocates to practise, but it has not come into force Section 34 enables the High Courts to make rules laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practise in the High Court and the Courts subordinate thereto, Section 49 declares the general power of Bar Council of India to make rules for discharine its function under the Act, and, in particular prescribes such rules in relation to the matters expressly set out therein. Clause (ab) refers to qualifications for membership of a Bar Council and the disqualification for such membership. Clause (ag) relates to the class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled as advocates. Clause (ah) refers to the conditions subject to which an advocate shall have the right to practise and the circumstances under which a person shall be deemed to practise as an advocate in a Court. Clause (c) relates to the standards of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by advocates. Section 30 deals with repeal of certain enactments, including the Indian Bar Councils Act and the Legal Practitioners Act However, the repeal will be only of such provisions set out expressly in the section, from the time when the corresponding provisions in the Advocates Act are brought into force. Thus sub section (3) provides for repeal of section 14 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, and so much of sections 8 and i 5 of that Act as confer on legal practitioners the right to practise in any Court or before any authority or person on the date on which Chapter IV of the Advocates Act comas into force. It should be noted here that the entire of Chapter IV of the Advocates Act has not come into force. We have already referred to the fact that section 30, which is found in Chapter IV has not yet come into force. Hence section 14 of the Indian Bar Councils Act cannot be considered to have been repealed. 12. Section 14 of the Indian Bar Councils Act deals with the right of advocates to practise. 13. We have already referred to the fact that section 30, which is found in Chapter IV has not yet come into force. Hence section 14 of the Indian Bar Councils Act cannot be considered to have been repealed. 12. Section 14 of the Indian Bar Councils Act deals with the right of advocates to practise. 13. The Bar Council of India has framed rules exercising the power under section 49 (1) (c) read with the proviso thereto and section 49 (1) (ah) of the Advocates Act of course, the Bar Council of India has framed rules under the other provisions also, with which we are not concerned in this case. In the rules framed under section 49 (1) (c), the standards of professional conduct and etiquette are laid down. Section VII thereof deals with the restriction on other employments. Rule 47 prevents an advocate from personally engaging in any business but he may be a sleeping partner in a firm provided that in the opinion of the appropriate State Bar Council the nature of the business is not inconsistent with the dignity of the profession Rule 48 permits an advocate to be a Director or Chairman of the Board of Directors of a company with or without any ordinary sitting fee, provided none of his duties are of an executive character. However, an advocate shall not be a Managing Director or a Secretary of any company. Rule 49 is relevant for the purpose of this case and requires to be quoted in entirety, It reads as follows: "49. An Advocate shall not be a fulltime salaried employee of any person, Government, firm, corporation or concern, so long as he continues to practise and shall, on taking up any such employment Ultimate the fact to the Bar Council on which roll his name appears, and shall thereupon cease to practise as an Advocate so long as he continues in such employment. Nothing in this rule shall apply to Law Officer of the Central Government or the Government of a State or of any Public Corporation or body constituted by statute who is entitled to be enrolled under the rules of his State Bar Council made under section 28 (2) (d) read with section 24 (1) (c) of the Act despite his being a full time salried employee. Law Officer for the; purpose of this rules means a person who is so designated by the terms of his appointment and who, by the said terms, is required to act and/or plead in Courts on behalf of his employee." 14. In the rules framed under section 49 (1) (ah) Rule 2, prevents an advocate from entering into a partnership or any other arrangement for sharing remuneration with any person or legal Practitioner who is not an Advocate. Rule 5, is quite relevant and it is in the following term : "5. (1) An Advocate who voluntarily suspends his practice for any reason, whatsoever, shall intimate by registered post to the State Bar Council on the roils of which his name is entered, of such suspension together with his certificate of enrolment in original. (2) Whenever any such advocate who has suspended his practice desires to resume his practice, he shall apply to the Secretary of the State Bar Council for resumption of practice, along with an affidavit stating whether he has incurred any of the disqualifications under section 24-A, Chapter III of the Act during the period of suspension. (3) The Enrolment Committee of the State Bar Council may order the resumption of his practice and return the certificate to him with necessary endorsement, if the Enrolment Committee is of the view that the advocate has incurred any of the disqualifications, the Committee shall refer the matter under proviso to section 26 (1) of the Act. (4) On suspension and resumption of practice the Secretary shall act in terms of Rule 24 of Part IX." 15. A perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules referred to above clearly show that it is not an absolute right of a person, who has obtained a degree in law to get enrolled or admitted as an advocate on State rolls Even if, the conditions expressly set out in section 24 are satisfied, such person who is desirous to be admitted as an advocate must fulfil such other conditions as may be specified by the State Bar Council in the rules made by it. Even if the State Bar Council does not make any rule, the provisions of section 24 are clearly subject to other provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Even if the State Bar Council does not make any rule, the provisions of section 24 are clearly subject to other provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. The Bar Council of India is entitled to make rules under section 49 and those rules must also be satisfied before a person claims to be entitled to get enrolled as an advocate 16. Before proceeding further it will be advantageous to refer to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Dr. Haniraj L. Chulanin Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, (1996) 3 SCC 342, wherein the Court had occasion to examine the scheme of the Act, the various provisions contained therein and the rules made thereunder The question which arose for consideration in that case was whether a person practicing the medical profession can get enrolled as an advocate and whether the rule framed by the State Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa which prohibited such enrolment was valid, The Court upheld the validity of the rule and negatived the claim of the petitioner before it. While doing so, the Court referred to the object, scope and scheme of the Act and some of the provisions contained therein. The following passages found in the judgment are quite instructive : "16. So far as the question of excessive delegation of legislative power is concerned we must note at the outset that the Act has been enacted, as seen earlier with a view to regulate the right of advocates to practise law. The rules framed by the Bat Council of India especially relating to standards of professional conduct and etiquette clearly aim at securing high standards of competence in legal services and seek to strengthen professional relationships among its members and pro mote the welfare of the society as a whole. Specific norms have been laid down in respect of conduct of the persons practicing the profession vis-a vis the public, the Court, the client, the opposite lawyer and professional brethren. Lawyers duty to traie juniors and impart free legal aid to the poor is part of the thdehics. The code thus provides standards for identification and measurement of professional deviance. As noted earlier the Act besides highlighting the essential functions of Bas Council of India provides for enforcement of the sam-and sets up disciplinary authorities to chastise and, if necessary, punish members of the profession for misconduct. The code thus provides standards for identification and measurement of professional deviance. As noted earlier the Act besides highlighting the essential functions of Bas Council of India provides for enforcement of the sam-and sets up disciplinary authorities to chastise and, if necessary, punish members of the profession for misconduct. The punishment may include suspension from practice as well a removal of the name from the roll of advocates Section 49 (r confers power on the Bar Council of India to make rules, inter alia, for discharging its functions under the Act. Section 49 (1) (ag) when read with section 24 of the Act confers wide powers on the Bar Council of India to indicate the class or category of persons who maybe enrolled as advocates which power would include the power to refuse enrolment in certain circumstances The obligation to maintain the dignity and purity of the profession and to punish erring members carries with it the power to regulate entry into the profession with a view to ensuring that only profession-oriented and service-oriented people join the Bar and those not so oriented are kept out. The role of an advocate is essentially different from the role of any other profession, Au advocate is said to belong to a noble Profession The Act itself envisages the State Bar Councils who are the elected peers of advocates themselves to lay down the standards for the professional conduct and etiquette. That would naturally bring in its wake the power to regulate entry to such a noble profession. That would naturally bring in its wake the power to regulate entry to such a noble profession. It is said that law is a jealous mistress that calls for undivided loyalty and unflinching attention from her devotees, Dry drudgery of desks’ dead wood is the essential requirement of an advocate aspiring to win laurels in the profession The attack on the impugned rule on the ground of excessive delegation of legislative power will have to be examined in the light of scheme of the Act which has entrusted the power and the duty to elected representatives of the profession constituting the State Bar Councils to lay down the high standards of professional etiquette as expected of the advocates enrolled by it is pertinent to note that the Act has entrusted to the Bar Council of India, amongst others, the functions to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils. The Bar Council of India is entrusted with the faction to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities with such directions as it may give in this behalf. It conducts seminars and organised talks on legal topics by eminent jurists and publishes journals and papers of legal interest In this connection h also exercises general supervision and control over the State Bar Councils, It is also entrusted with the task of promoting and supporting law reform. All these provisions as laid down by section 7 of the Act leave no room for doubt that even prior to the enrolment as advocate the teaching of law and laying down of the curriculum for law courses are also the tasks entrusted to the Bar Council of India, which is the apex body of professionals monitoring these matters in conjunction with the State Bar Councils. Thus even at pie-entry stage of an advocate to the profession his equipments as a student of law and the requirement basic legal education with which he should be armed before he can aspire to be enrolled as an advocate are also looked after by the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council concerned which works under the general supervision and control of the apex body, namely, the Bar Council of India. Thus the Bar Council of India is cast with the duty to take all such steps as it considers necessary to filter students at the entry stage to the law course by providing an entrance test, as well as at the entry point to the profession, e.g. by providing an examination or a training course before enrolment as an advocate. The Act also deals with the topic of regulation of professional conduct of advocates from the entry point itself. 17. The State Bar Councils concerned have to monitor the role of advocates so long as they continue to practise law after initial entry. As the enrolment by the State Bar Council entitles an advocate after entry to the profession, to practise the noble profession of law and who becomes, by such enrolment, an officer of the Court, the said entrant can be validly subjected by the Bar Council concerned to the strict requirements of the profession for enabling such an aspirant to effectively cater to the needs of the legal profession. The power and the duty entrusted to the State Councils to monitor such entry, in the light of the nature of the profession to which such entry is given would themselves supply the necessary yardstrick and guidelines for the exercise of such power by the elected body of advocates constituting the Bar Councils concerned. The scheme of the Act thus lays down a complete code for regulating the legal education and professional equipments of an aspirant seeking entry to legal profession from the grassroots level where he is student of law till he equips himself with essential legal knowledge and seeks enrolment and even thereafter till he practices law and completes his professional career as advocate Thus, from the reentry point to legal profession till the exit point from the legal profession the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils monitor the career of the legal practitioner. It is the entire scheme of the Act when considered in the light of the nature of the legal profession to which such entry is given which has to be kept in view while considering the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the power given to the State Bar Councils to regulate such entries by framing rules is a piece of excessive delegation of legislative power, ft cannot be gainsaid that law is universally described as an honorable profession An advocate is an officer of justice and friend of the Court, A conduct, therefore which is unworthy of him as an officer of justice cannot be justified by stating that he did it as the agent of his client, His status as an officer of justice does not mean that he is subordinate to the Judge, ft only means that he is an integral part for the administration of justice. Legal profession is monopolistic in character and this monopoly itself inheres certain high traditions which its members are expected to keep up and uphold, Members of the profession claimed that they are the leaders of thought and society the central function that the legal profession must perform is nothing less than the administration of justice. 18. ................The Bar Councils concerned are entrusted by the legislature itself with the aforesaid rule making power enabling them to determine the requirements of the State Courts concerned where the new entrants have to practise and to lay down appropriate conditions regulating such entries. 18. ................The Bar Councils concerned are entrusted by the legislature itself with the aforesaid rule making power enabling them to determine the requirements of the State Courts concerned where the new entrants have to practise and to lay down appropriate conditions regulating such entries. As the power to make rules is entrusted by legislature to the chosen representatives of legal practitioners themselves who would be alive to the requirements of the State concerned where the Bar Council functions and the needs of litigating public residing in the States in the light of the set-up of Courts in the States concerned, it cannot be said that the power is in any way unfettered or uncanalisd so as to amount to total effacement of legislative control Sufficient guidelines are laid down by the legislature itself while conferring such powers on the State Bar Councils The guidelines flow from the nature of the profession to which admissions are to be given, the selection of the chosen representatives of the profession to be the recipients of such power and the requirements of the statute itself laying down the conditions for regulating the professional conduct of advocates as discernible from various provisions of the Act and the rules framed by a Central Bar Council itself for the guidance of all the State Bar Councils functioning in the country which are entrusted with the task of regulating the conduct of legal profession throughout the country under the supervision and guidance of Central Bar Council." 17. We must bear the above principles in mind when we approach the facts of this case. It will not be out of place to mention here that in Lingappa Pochanna Appealwar v. State of Maharashtra and another AIR 1985 SC 389, the Supreme Court rejected the contention that an advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961 as an absolute right to practise before all Courts and Tribunals. After taking note of the fact that sec-lion 30 of the said Act has not been brought into force, the Court has also observed that the right to practise is a matter, which is still regulated by different statutes and the extent of right to practise must depend on the terms of those statutes. 18. After taking note of the fact that sec-lion 30 of the said Act has not been brought into force, the Court has also observed that the right to practise is a matter, which is still regulated by different statutes and the extent of right to practise must depend on the terms of those statutes. 18. We have already set out the fact that the petitioner was a full time salaried employee of the Board when he applied for enrolment as an advocate to the respondent. There was no rule framed by the respondent which entitles a full time salaried employee to get enrolled. Unless there is such a specific rule, the petitioner could not have got enrolled himself as an advocate this position is very clear from a plain reading of Rule 49 framed by the Bar Council of India, extracted by us earlier. Read with section 24 of the Act. We have pointed out that the provisions of the said section are subject to the other provisions of the Act and also the rules framed thereunder Rule 49 is undoubtedly a rule framed under the provisions of the Act by the Bar Council of India. The relevant part of the rule is to the effect that an advocate shall not be a full time salaried employee so long as he continues to practise and shall on taking up any such employment cease to practise as an advocate so long he continues in such employment under intimation to the Bar Council, The second paragraph of the rule excludes the applicability of the rule to allow the Law Officer of the Central Government or the Government of a State or of any Public Corporation or body constituted by statute. The most significant part of the second paragraph of the rule is found in the following words : "Who is entitled to be enrolled under the rules of his State Bar Council made under section 28 (12) (d) read with section 24 (1) (e) of the Act despite his being a full time salaried employee " 19. The most significant part of the second paragraph of the rule is found in the following words : "Who is entitled to be enrolled under the rules of his State Bar Council made under section 28 (12) (d) read with section 24 (1) (e) of the Act despite his being a full time salaried employee " 19. Thus there must be a positive rule framed by the State Bar Council under section 28 (2) (d) read with section 24 (1) (e) of the Act entitling a full time salaried employee to get enrolled as an advocate In the absence of such a positive rule, the second paragraph of Rule 49 cannot be invoked by a full time salaried employee. When there is no rule made by the State Bar Council entitling the petitioner to get enrolled as an advocate despite his being a full time salaried employee of the Board at the time of his application for enrolment, he had no right to get enrolled. A combined reading of the first paragraph of Rule 49 and section 24 (1) clearly shows that the petitioner being a full time salaried employee of the Board was not entitled to be enrolled as an advocate in 1984. 20. Unfortunately on a wrong understanding of the rule on a mistaken impression that there was a rule framed by the State Bar Council similar to Rule 49, the respondent granted the application of the petitioner and enrolled him as an advocate. An enrolment certificate was consequently issued to the petitioner thereafter. The fact that the petitioner was designated as a Law Officer and required by the Board to act and plead in any Court of law would not in any way help the petitioner Such term of appointment will not bind the Bar Council and it will not enable the petitioner to get enrolled as an advocate. 21. It is contended that the first part of Rule 49 contemplates only cesser of practise under intimation to the Bar Council and there is no prohibition against enrolment of a full time salaried employee as an advocate. 21. It is contended that the first part of Rule 49 contemplates only cesser of practise under intimation to the Bar Council and there is no prohibition against enrolment of a full time salaried employee as an advocate. According to learned Counsel, the right to get enrolment is conferred by section 24 and once the requirements of the section are fulfilled and there is no rule framed by the State Bar Council under section 24 (1) (e), there is nothing in law to prevent the enrolment of such a person as an advocate. This contention cannot be accepted as pointed out already, section 24 must be read along with Rule 49. When Rule 49 speaks of an advocate ceasing to practise, it contemplates a person, who got enrolled as an advocate first and thereafter becoming a full time salaried employee under any person. In the present case, the petitioner sought to put the cart before the horse by getting employed in the first instance under the Board and thereafter seeking enrolment as an advocate. In such cases, it goes without saying that a full time salaried employee cannot get enrolled as an advocate unless there is a specific rule framed by the State Bar Council under section 28 (2) (d) read with section 24 (1)(e) of the Act entitling him to be enrolled, as set out in paragraph 2 of Rule 49. 22. Inasmuch as, the petitioner was not entitled to get enrolled in 1984 when he was wrongly enrolled by the State Bar Council on the understanding of the Act and the Rules, the respondent is well within its jurisdiction in withdrawing the certificate issued to him. The view expressed by the respondent in the resolution passed on 12-5-1996 is correct and the petitioner cannot assail the same as illegal 23. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the respondent that even assuming that the petitioner was entitled to act and plead in the court on behalf of the Board as a Law Officer when he was initially appointed, there was no such term when he was appointed as Under-Secretary and Deputy Secretary in the orders of appointments According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, he was promoted not only as Under Secretary but he was continued as a Law Officer as the designation was Under-Secretary-cum-Law Officer. According to learned Counsel, again when he was promoted as Deputy Secretary he was continued as a Law Officer and the terms of appointment which were applicable to Law Officer continue to apply to the petitioner. Even assuming that the said contention is correct, in the view expressed above, the petitioner cannot claim to be enrolled as an advocate. Consequently, the withdrawal of his enrolment certificate by the respondent is correct and it is to be upheld. 24. It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is permitting advocates who have been appointed under State Government services in the prosecution department and similarly situated persons to represent the State Government in Courts and thus the respondent is guilty of discrimination. It is also submitted that the Law Officers in the office of the Advocate General have also been permitted to practise in Courts, and, therefore the petitioner cannot be prevented from representing the Board in Courts. There is no merit in these contentions. 25. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Dr Haniraj L. Chulan’s case, (1996) 3 SCC 342, the profession Is a noble and Honourable and advocates are officers of the Court. They owe a duty not only to the clients but also to the Court and their colleagues. A person who is a fall time salaried employee under somebody cannot be expected to discharge his duties towards the Court and the colleagues in a proper manner. The position of the Advocate General and the Law Officers in his office is entirely different. It is too well known that an Advocate General is a Constitutional functionary under Article 165 of the Constitution, In the yester-years, he was also an ex-officio chairman of the Bar Council and accredited leader of the Bar, The posts of Law Officers in the office of the Advocate General have also been created under the rules framed by the Governor of the State under Article 309 of the Constitution vide the Himachal Pradesh Assistant Advocate General (Class-I Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules,, 1989, published in the Himachal Pradesh Rajpatra, Vol I 1989 and the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Deputy Advocate General Himachal Pradesh vide notification No. Home-ii (B)-2 1/80, dated Shimla-171002, the 1st December, 1980. 26. 26. As regards District Attorneys and other Attorneys, who are representing the Government in the Subordinate Courts, there are sufficient provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure itself permitting those people to appear in the Court as recognized agents of the Government within the meaning of Order 3 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure Section 2 (7) of the Code of Civil Procedure defines a Government Pleader’ as including any officer appointed by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions expressly imposed by the Code on the Government Pleader and also any pleader acting under the directions of the Government Pleader. Order 27, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that persons being ex officio or otherwise authorized to act for the Government in respect of any judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be the recognized agents by whom appearances, acts and applications under this Code may be made or done on behalf of the Government. Order 33 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for giving notice to the Government Pleader when the Court sees no reason to reject the application under that order en any of the grounds stated in Rule 5 thereof. The District Attorneys and other officials representing the Government will certainly fall within the definition of Government Pleader found in section 2 (7) of the Code of Civil Procedure, As regards Public Prosecutors and their Assistants sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contain the relevant provisions enabling them to represent the State. Hence, the petitioner, who is a full time salaried employee of a body constituted by a statute and not the State Government itself or the Law Officer of the State Government or the Central Government as such cannot claim to placed on the same pedestal as the Law Officers of the Government, 27. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The decision of the State Bar Council to withdraw the enrolment of the petitioner is in accordance with law and it is hereby upheld. The civil writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.