JUDGEMENT Cyriac Joseph, C.J. 1. The petitioner is a law graduate who successfully completed the Three Years Law Degree Course in the year 1996 from KGK College, Moradabad which is affiliated to the MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly. The result of the final year examination was declared in the month of July, 1996 and the petitioner was enrolled as a Trainee Advocate on 21-02-1997. After successful completion of the training, the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on 24-06-1998. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Prosecuting Officer in the service of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and he was appointed as Assistant Prosecuting Officer on 01-11-1998. Since then, the petitioner has been working as Assistant Prosecuting Officer. 2. In the month of February, 2005, the High Court of Uttaranchal invited applications from practising Advocates for appointment by direct recruitment to the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service in accordance with the provisions of Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2004. According to the Notification inviting applications (Annexure P2), a candidate, for recruitment in the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service, must be a practising Advocate for a period of not less than 7 years as on 01-01-2005. In response to Annexure P2 notification, the petitioner submitted his application. However, as per the impugned communication dated 22-09-2005 (Annexure 1), the petitioner was informed that his application was rejected for the reason of "Inadequate Experience of Practice". Aggrieved by the rejection of his application, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for quashing the impugned communication dated 22-09-2005 and for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination scheduled to be held for eligible candidates on 23-10-2005. 3. According to the petitioner as on 01-01-2005 he had the experience of 7 years 10 months and 10 days as an Advocate. It is stated that from 21-02-1997 to 31-10-1998, he had experience of 1 year 8 months and 10 days and from 01-11-1998 to 01-01-2005 during which period he was serving as Assistant Prosecuting Officer, he had experience of 6 years and 2 months. It is contended that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushma Suri Vs. It is contended that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushma Suri Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another and connected cases reported in (1999) 1 SCC 330, the petitioner's experience as Assistant Prosecuting Officer is liable to be treated as experience as Advocate. However, it is admitted that even if the service as Assistant Prosecuting Officer is treated as experience as Advocate, the petitioner does not have the required 7 years' experience as practising Advocate as on 01-012005, unless the period of training as Trainee Advocate also is taken into account. 4. For the purpose of this case, we will assume that the petitioner's service as Assistant Prosecuting Officer is liable to be treated as experience as Advocate for the purpose of recruitment to the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service. Even then, the question arises whether the period spent by the petitioner as a Trainee Advocate can be treated as qualifying experience as a Practising Advocate. If the said period of training is not treated as qualifying experience, the petitioner was not eligible to apply for recruitment to the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service. 5. Recruitment to Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service is governed by the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). According to Rule 5 of the Rules, one of the sources of recruitment is direct recruitment of "Advocates of not less than 7 years standing on the first day of January of the year in which the notice inviting applications is published ." It means that a candidate applying for direct recruitment to Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service should have 7 years' experience as Advocate on the first day of January of the year in which the notice inviting applications is published. In Annexure P2 notification inviting applications, it was stipulated that a candidate applying for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge must be a "Practising Advocate for a period of not less than 7 years on 01-01-2005". The above stipulation is strictly in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules. Thus, a candidate applying for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge pursuant to Annexure P2 notification should have been a Practising Advocate for a period of not less than 7 years as on 01-01-2005. 6. The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner satisfied the above requirement of qualifying experience. Thus, a candidate applying for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge pursuant to Annexure P2 notification should have been a Practising Advocate for a period of not less than 7 years as on 01-01-2005. 6. The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner satisfied the above requirement of qualifying experience. Admittedly, the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate only on 24-06-1998 vide Advocate Enrolment No. U.P. 2097/1998. It implies that the petitioner could practise as an Advocate only from 24-06-1998 and that the petitioner can be treated as a Practising Advocate only from 24-06-1998. If the petitioner can be treated as a Practising Advocate only from 24-06-1998, obviously he was not a Practising Advocate for a period of not less than 7 years as on 01-01-2005. Consequently, the petitioner was not qualified for the post for which applications were invited and the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the post. Hence, his application was ri9htly rejected vide Annexure 1 communication dated 22-09-2005. 7. The petitioner relies on Annexure P1 certificate dated 23-02-2005 issued by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh which reads as follows : "This is to certify that the date of Enrolment of Sri Bhuwan Chandra Rathor Advocate Enrolment No. U.P. 2097/98 is the date of his Enrolment as Trainee Advocate in accordance with Training Rules 15 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 398 of 1996 V. Sudveer Vs. Bar Council of India dated 12/15-3-1999 as Per the Resolution No. 523 dated 22-08-1999 of U.P. Bar Council and his Seniority in legal practise is to be counted from the date of Enrolment as a Trainee Advocate viz. Tr. No. 1369/97 dated 21-2-97." The contention of the petitioner is that since the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh has certified that his seniority in legal practice is to be counted from the date of enrolment as a Trainee Advocate, he is entitled to be treated as having experience as a Practising Advocate from 21-02-1997, though he was actually enrolled as an Advocate only on 24-06-1998 vide Advocate Enrolment No. U.P. 2097/1998. 8. Relying on Annexure P1 certificate dated 23-02-2005 issued by the Bar Council of U.P., Mr. 8. Relying on Annexure P1 certificate dated 23-02-2005 issued by the Bar Council of U.P., Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that, since the petitioner is entitled to have his seniority in legal practice counted from the date of enrolment as a Trainee Advocate (i.e. from 21-02-1997), he is entitled to be treated as a Practising Advocate from 21-02-1997 and on that basis, he is entitled to be treated as eligible to apply for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge. We are not inclined to accept this contention. The qualification required under the Rules and Annexure P2 Notification is 7 years' experience as a Practising Advocate and not 7 years' seniority in legal practice. During the period of training, a Trainee Advocate was only undergoing training under an Advocate Guide and during the period of training, he was not entitled to practise as an Advocate. According to Rule 2 of the Bar Council of India Training Rules; 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bar Council Rules') which came into force on 02-04-1996, no person shall be entitled to be enrolled as an advocate unless he is eligible to be enrolled as such under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and has undergone training as prescribed under the said Rules. However while undergoing training, the Trainee shall be enrolled provisionally as Trainee Advocate after the approval of the name of his guide by the State Bar Council and the State Bar Council shall issue identity card to the provisionally enrolled Trainee Advocate for his identification. According to Rule 7, every candidate shall be bound to receive training for the period of one year under the same guide. According to Rule 8, during the period of training, the candidate shall regularly attend the chamber or office of the guide, study case papers, correspondence, draft pleadings, attend courts and in particular, study cases with a view to get acquainted with the practice in courts. According to Rule 9, every candidate shall maintain two diaries in. the form approved by the State Bar Council; one for work done in chambers and the other for work done in courts. Every candidate shall submit his diaries to the guide for scrutiny atleast twice a month and obtain his signature with the dates in the diaries. According to Rule 9, every candidate shall maintain two diaries in. the form approved by the State Bar Council; one for work done in chambers and the other for work done in courts. Every candidate shall submit his diaries to the guide for scrutiny atleast twice a month and obtain his signature with the dates in the diaries. Rule 13 provides that the State Bar Council may provide for lectures to be delivered by its members, legal luminaries, jurists on professional ethics and other topics at suitable places in the State and the attendance of trainees in such lectures be deemed to be a part of the training and shall be compulsory except on special cause .to be shown. As per Rule 15A, a Trainee shall be enrolled provisionally as "Trainee Advocate" after the approval of the name of his guide by the State Bar Council and on successful completion of training period, he shall be enrolled as "Advocate" as defined under Section 2(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961. As per Rule 15B, the Trainee Advocates after their provisional enrolment, shall be entitled to appear in court for seeking adjournments and to make mentioning on instructions of their guide. The Bar Council Rules also provided that a male Trainee shall wear the dress of a male Advocate except for band and gown and shall wear plain maroon coloured tie badge indicating that he is a Trainee. A female Trainee shan wear dress of a female Advocate except for band and gown and shall wear a badge indicating that she is a Trainee. The above-mentioned provisions in the Bar Council Rules clearly establish that during the period of training prescribed under the said Rules, a Trainee Advocate is not an Advocate as defined under Section 2(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and that he is not allowed or authorised to practise as an Advocate and hence, a Trainee Advocate cannot be treated as a Practising Advocate. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Sudeer Vs. Bar Council of India and another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 176, it was held that under the Bar Council of India Training Rules 1995, a Trainee Advocate had only a limited right to ask for adjournment and mentioning cases of his guide. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Sudeer Vs. Bar Council of India and another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 176, it was held that under the Bar Council of India Training Rules 1995, a Trainee Advocate had only a limited right to ask for adjournment and mentioning cases of his guide. If a Trainee Advocate had only a limited right to ask for adjournment and mentioning cases of his guide and had no right to discharge ali the functions and duties of an advocate, the Trainee Advocate was not a Practising Advocate during the period of training and the period spent as Trainee Advocate cannot be counted for experience as a Practising Advocate. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Rule 15 of the Bar Council Rules which provided that a Trainee on successful completion of training period shall be entitled to seniority from the date of provisional enrolment as Trainee under the Rules. He also invited our attention to Rule '15A'which provided that on successful completion of training period, the Trainee shall be enrolled as "Advocate" as defined under Section 2(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and shall be entitled to seniority as Advocate from the date of provisional enrolment. In view of the above-mentioned provisions in Rules 15 and 15A of the Bar Council Rules, learned counsel contended that when a Trainee is enrolled as Advocate on successful completion of training, he will be deemed to have been enrolled as Advocate on the date of provisional enrolment as Trainee Advocate. According to the learned counsel, Annexure P1 certificate dated 23-02-2005 was issued by the Bar Council of U.P. in view of the above-mentioned provisions in Rules 15 and 15A. The logic and the purpose of the said provisions contained in Rules 15 and 15A of the Bar Council Rules are not clear. The Bar Council Rules were struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the said Rules were beyond the rule making power of the Bar Council of India. The logic and the purpose of the said provisions contained in Rules 15 and 15A of the Bar Council Rules are not clear. The Bar Council Rules were struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the said Rules were beyond the rule making power of the Bar Council of India. Moreover, it is also not clear as to what are the implications of the expression "seniority in legal practise." At any rate, Annexure P1 certificate cannot have the effect of certifying that the petitioner was a Practising Advocate even prior to the actual date of his enrolment as an advocate or that the period of training can be courted for the purpose of experience as a Practising Advocate, even though the petitioner could not have practiced and was not actually practising as an advocate during the period of training. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that the Bar Council is competent to declare or certify that a person was a practising advocate during the period when he was not entitled to practise as an advocate and did not actually practise as an advocate. 10. As already mentioned in V. Sudeer Vs. Bar Council of India and another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down the Bar Council of India Training Rules 1995 on the ground that the impugned Rules were beyond the rule making power of the Bar Council of India. It was also directed that the judgment will operate only prospectively to avoid unnecessary confusion and complications. It was further clarified that the judgment will have no retrospective effect in the sense that it will not apply to those applicants for enrolment who have earlier applied for enrolment and have successfully completed their pre-enrolment training as per the impugned Rules. The above-mentioned direction and clarification by the Supreme Court only meant that what was already done under the impugned Rules would not be affected by the striking down of the Rules. In other words, the action of the Bar Council of U.P. in enrolling the petitioner as a Trainee Advocate on 21-02-1997 and enrolling him as an Advocate only on 24-06-1998 after successfully completing the training, remained unaffected by the judgment. Consequently, the petitioner can be treated to have been enrolled as an Advocate only on 24-06-1998 and he can be treated as a Practising Advocate only from 2406-1998. Consequently, the petitioner can be treated to have been enrolled as an Advocate only on 24-06-1998 and he can be treated as a Practising Advocate only from 2406-1998. Even though the Bar Council Rules provided that on enrolment as Advocate, a Trainee is entitled to seniority as Advocate from the date of provisional enrolment as Trainee Advocate, it did not mean that he was a Practising Advocate before the date of his enrolment as an Advocate. The judgment of the Supreme Court did not require or authorise the Bar Council of U.P. to treat the petitioner as a Practising Advocate prior to 24-06-1998 or to treat the period of training as a period of practice as advocate. Therefore, on the basis of Annexure P1 certificate issued by the Bar Council of U.P., it cannot be held that the petitioner was a Practising Advocate prior to 24-06-1998 or that the period of training as Trainee Advocate can be counted for experience as a Practising Advocate. 11. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. ."