The writ petitioner challenged Rule 6(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2009, mandating 50% marks for viva-voce eligibility. The court held the rule was not arbitrary or irrational and dismissed the petition under Article 14.
The writ petition is summarily dismissed with no merit found.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1449 OF 2010
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders
1
Mr. R.N. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the petitioner
CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE :- 1st December, 2010.
PER COURT :-
1] The petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of Rule 6(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rule, 2009. It is the contention of the petitioner that the rule, which prescribed that for being eligible for viva-voce examination for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division), it is necessary that the candidate should secure not less than 50% marks, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2] The learned counsel submits that in none of the States, the minimum qualifying marks are prescribed as 50% and as such, the petitioner, who is a citizen of India is entitled to be granted the same treatment.
3] The rule in question reads thus :-
“6. Recruitment by nomination :-
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1449 OF 2010
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders
2
per cent of marks in each paper in written examination shall be eligible for the viva-voce examination for appointment to the post of District Judge under 1(b) and 1(c) and Civil Judge, Juhnior Division under 3(A) of the Table `C' under rule 5 and by nomination :
Provided that , Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidates who obtain forty-five per cent or more marks in the written examination shall be eligible for the viva voce examination :
Provided further that, the candidate who obtains 40% marks in the viva voce examination shall be eligible for selection.”
4] Merely because in one State different norms are prescribed for the appointment as Civil Judge Junior Division, cannot be a ground to challenge the norms prescribed by another State. Unless the norms which are prescribed are found to be patently arbitrary or palpably irrational, the challenge to the rule taking recourse to Article 14 would not be tenable. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the rule so prescribed, is patently arbitrary or palpably irrational. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the petition. Hence, the same is summarily dismissed.
grt/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Rule 6(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rule, 2009 prescribing 50% marks for viva-voce eligibility violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Whether different norms for mark eligibility in different States amount to arbitrary discrimination justifying a challenge under Article 14.
Whether the prescribed minimum marks requirement is patently arbitrary or palpably irrational.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
State of Maharashtra
B.R. Gavai
R.M. Borde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
