Judgment :- Shivaraj Patil, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for writ of mandamus directing the first respondent the Registrar, of this High Court to forward the petitioners application dated 27. 1998 with enclosures which is returned to the petitioner by the letter R.O.C. No. 4962/A/98/C3, dated 18. 1998 to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai. 3. The petitioner was practising as an Advocate for 9 years from 30.11.1988 to 23. 1998 at Madurai. He was selected for the post of Examiner and he is working as such from 23. 1998 in the Judicial Magistrates Court at Periyakulam. In response to the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, inviting applications in the recruitment to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division), the petitioner submitted application through the proper channel. The 1st respondent did not forward the application and on the other hand, returned the same, stating that the petitioner was not a practicing advocate on 7. 1998, the date on which the notification was issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the relief as stated above. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner based on the instructions issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to candidates in particular inviting our attention to paragraph 3(d), submitted that for the purpose of Clause (d), a person will be deemed to be not in the service of the Indian Union or a State in India, paragraph 3(d) aforementioned reads as below : "3. A candidate must satisfy the commission - .(a) .... (b) .... (c) ..... A candidate must satisfy the commission - .(a) .... (b) .... (c) ..... .(d) that, on the date of notification advertisement for the purpose of directed recruitment he was not in the service of the Indian Union or of a State in India.Note : For the purpose of this clause a person will be deemed to be not in the service of the Indian Union or of a State in India - .(i) If a period of five years has not elapse since his first appointment to service of the Indian Union or of a State in India, or .(ii) if he belongs to one of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or to one of the Backward Classes" Thus, according to the learned counsel in case of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, there is an exception. In that event, though the petitioner is in service, he should be deemed to be not in service and his application should be accepted. 5. We has occasion to consider the requirement of being a practising advocate on the date of the application yesterday (19. 1998) in W.P. No. 14431 of 1998 and we disposed of the said writ petition, dismissing it referring to Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1995. For the very reasons stated in our order passed yesterday in the aforementioned writ petition, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the petitioner is in service, his application should be accepted. The requirement of Rule 5 is that a candidate seeking to apply for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), must be a practising advocate on the date of the notification i.e., 7. 1998 in the instant case. The positive requirement is that the candidate must be a practising advocate on the date of the notification, whether that candidate is in service or not. But a candidate, who is in service on the date of the notification cannot be considered to be a practising advocate. The interpretation sought to be placed by the learned counsel, if accepted, it contradicts the very rule. Hence it is not possible for us to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this view, the writ petition is rejected at the stage of admission. The interpretation sought to be placed by the learned counsel, if accepted, it contradicts the very rule. Hence it is not possible for us to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this view, the writ petition is rejected at the stage of admission. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 22003 of 1998 is dismissed.Petition dismissed.