JUDGMENT Sudhir Narain, J.
1. The petitioner seeks to quash the Allahabad High Court Advocates' Clerks (Regulation and Conduct) Rules, 1997.
2. The High Court regulates the working of the Advocates' Clerks and has laid down qualification for the purpose of registration in the Registry. Chapter 26 of the High Court Rules, 1952, had provided qualification for registration of the clerks. This has been amended by Allahabad High Court Advocates' Clerks (Registration and Conduct) Rules, 1997. Rule 3 provides for preparation and maintenance of Roll. Rule 4 prohibits a person from working as an advocate's clerk unless his name is entered in the Roll. Rule 5 provides for qualification for registration as a clerk of an advocate. Rule 6 lays down the conditions for disqualification for enrolment. Rule 7 provides the manner in which the panel of the clerks will be prepared. Rule 8 provides the terms and conditions of engagement of the clerk by an advocate. Rule 9 provides regarding application for registration of roll. Rule 10 is in respect of registration fee. Rule 11 is in respect of removal of name from the Roll or Panel. Rule 12 provides the acts which a registered clerk may perform.
3. We have heard Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Sudhir Agarwal learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the various rules framed are onerous for a person who is to be enrolled as clerk.
5. His first submission is that Rule 5 provides for qualification to be registered as an advocate's clerk. Clause (c) of Rule 5 provides that a person who has passed Intermediate examination or an examination equivalent thereto only is entitled to be registered as a clerk and such qualification was not required under the old rules where only passing of High School was found to be sufficient for registration as a clerk. It is submitted that many of the clerks have to do work in a mechanical way, for example, submitting papers etc., and that passing of High School examination is sufficient for that purpose. It may be noted that the standard of education for a clerk is to be determined by the authority concerned taking into consideration all the relevant factors. As the nature of work requires a higher education, the High Court can provide for a higher qualification. Those who have passed High School examination prior to 1998 may be treated as good qualification at that time taking into consideration the educational standard then existed. But now Intermediate education has been found a necessary qualification for registration as a clerk. The clerk has to know general English. General Hindi and also the General procedure including questions on Rules of the Court, 1952 and Court Fees Act, 1970, as provided under Rule 7 of the Rules. Unless a person has passed Intermediate examination, his knowledge of English and the knowledge of Rules of the Court will not be up to the mark. We do not find any merit in the submission.
6. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 7, 50% marks are required to be obtained by the candidate while appearing in the test for seeking registration. It is contended that in the Intermediate examination, passing marks are only 33% and requirement of 50% marks in the test for registration is excessive. The passing marks in High School and Intermediate examination cannot be taken as a guideline in respect of educational qualification for a person who wants to assist an Advocate in his legal profession. It may be noted that passing marks in L.LB. examination is 50% and working as a clerk of an Advocate, he is to be efficient and taking into consideration his efficiency 50% marks provided in the Rules is justified.
7. The third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the proviso to Rule 12, the State Law Officers may employ clerks and there is no provision that such clerks may also be registered. Firstly, the petitioner has not given any example whether the clerks working with State Law Officers have not passed Intermediate examination and secondly, they are the Government employees. In absence of any material before us, we cannot hold that the clerks working with Government Advocate or Standing Counsel's office are not entitled to function as clerks.
8. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the old rules while laying down qualification for enrolment as Clerk, the Chief Justice was given power to exempt any person in respect of his educational qualification but under 1997 Rules, there is no such provision and that amounts to discrimination. The petitioner can challenge the vires of the provision but the petitioner cannot agitate that particular rule should have been included in the said rules. The proviso to Rule 5, however, provides that Clauses (c), (d) and (e) shall not be applicable to a person who is already registered as Advocate's Clerk on the date of publication of the Rules, 1997.
9. In view of the above we do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.