Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner has prayed in this petition that the respo- ndent Bar Council of Rajasthan be directed to grant exemption to the petitioner from training as provided under Rule 14 of the Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995. (2). Learned counsel Shri Rajvanshi for the petitioner submitted that an application (Annex.7) was submitted by the petitioner to the Chairman of the Bar Council of Rajasthan at Jodhpur but the same has not yet been decided. He submitted that if it is not decided within one year then his application would become infructuous, therefore, the respondent Bar Council be directed to decide his application for exemption from training forthwith. (3). The State of Rajasthan is not joined as party respondent in this petition, therefore, in its present format this writ petition would not be maintainable. On merits also, the petitioner has no case. It is clear from the averments made by the petitioner himself in this petition that the Bar Council of India by its order dated 5.1.96 cancelled his enrolment on the ground that he obtained enrolment by suppressing material fact of he being a Government servant and that he was also involved in some serious criminal cases. (4). On being exonerated in criminal cases, the petitioner submitted an application to the Bar Council of Rajasthan for his enrolment on 6.7.98 in a prescribed form and also submitted an application for giving him exemption for one year training as provided under Rule 14 because according to him he was already an Advocate. In my opinion, such an application for exemption was abso- lutely frivolous. Once his enrolment was cancelled by the Bar Council of India, then there is no question of granting his application for enrolment by the respondent Rajasthan Bar Council. If the petitioner had not challenged order of cancellation of his enrolment passed by the Bar Council of India on 5.1.96 then later on he cannot apply for fresh enrolment with the respondent Bar Council of Rajasthan on the gro- und that he was exonerated in the criminal cases pending against him. Merely because he is exonerated from the criminal cases pending against him after the Bar Council of India cancelled his enrolment, he cannot be once again enrolled by the respondent Bar Council of Rajasthan. Merely because he is exonerated from the criminal cases pending against him after the Bar Council of India cancelled his enrolment, he cannot be once again enrolled by the respondent Bar Council of Rajasthan. It may be stated that the enrolment of the petitioner was cancelled not on the ground that some criminal cases were pending against him but his enrolment was also cancelled on the ground that the petitioner at the time of applying for enrolment suppressed the fact that he was a Government servant working as a Doctor in Government Hospital. Under the circumstances, when the Bar Council of India cancelled his enrolment then during the pendency of his application he cannot ask for exemption from training of one year. (5). In my considered opinion when the petitioner is not even eligible for fresh enrolment with the respondent Bar Council of Rajasthan then there is no question of his application under Rule 14 for exemption from training of one year be considered and granted. (6). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed summ- arily. (7). Office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the respondent-Bar council of Rajasthan for information, forthwith.