V.M. Pancholi JUDGMENT
R. Subhash Reddy, C.J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal, under clause-15 of the Letters patent is filed by the original respondent Nos. 2 and 3, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.11.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 19743 of 2015, granting interim relief in terms of para 7(C) of the petition.
2. Special Civil Application No. 19743 of 2015 is filed by the 1st respondent-original petitioner with the prayers which read as under:
"A) your Lordships be pleased to issue the writ of Mandamus or in the writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other such appropriate writ directing the respondents to act in accordance with the guidelines suggested by the respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 21.9.2013.
B) your lordships be pleased to issue writ directing the respondents to issue the permanent enrollment number to the petitioner in view of the decision taken by the respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 21.9.2013.
C) pending hearing and final disposal of the captioned petition your lordships be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 and 3 grant temporary enrollment number to the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner has cleared her bar examination and is entitled to practice."
3. 1st respondent completed her studies of B.A. LL.B. 5 years integrated course from Baroda School of Legal Studies, from Maharaja Sayaji Rao University, Baroda. As stated in the petition, it is her case that during her academic period, in the last year, she was selected in the campus interview of the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation as Legal Consultant known as Legal Expert on contract basis. She applied for certificate of practice to the Bar Council of Gujarat, but she was informed that her enrollment form for certificate of practice is put on hold as she is rendering services to the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and the same is in violation of Rule 49 of Chapter II, Part-6 of the Bar Council of India Rules. Mainly it is her case in the petition that contractual arrangement of her service with the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation cannot be viewed as employment and it is her case that remuneration paid to her is not by way of salary, as such, there is no employee-employer relationship. The 1st appellant herein referred the issue under Section 26(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 to the 2nd respondent. Even after the reference, when decision was not taken by the 2nd respondent-Bar Council of India, learned single Judge by order dated 2.5.2016 directed the Bar Council of India to take decision and place on record such decision in relation to the entitlement of the 1st respondent herein to get enrollment as an advocate on or before 13th June, 2016. Further it is observed that if no decision is taken, the 1st respondent-party in person is entitled to press for interim relief in terms of para 7(C) of the petition.
4. Learned single Judge, referring to earlier order dated 2.5.2016, by recording a finding that the Bar Council of India has not finally accepted or rejected the claim of the 1st respondent herein, passed order dated 17.11.2016 granting interim relief in terms of para 7(C) of the petition, by which directions were issued to the Bar Council of Gujarat to give temporary enrollment number to the 1st respondent herein forthwith. Aggrieved by such direction issued by the learned single Judge, this Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the 2nd and 3rd respondent of the petition.
5. Heard Mr. R.C. Jani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Ms. Jalpa Pradeepbhai Desai, respondent No. 1 appearing as party-in-person and Mr. Manan Shah, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
6. When the matter is called for hearing, learned counsel produced a copy of the letter dated 3.12.2016 addressed by the Bar Council of India. By the aforesaid lett........