1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3465 OF 2007 Sanjay s/o Narayan Balapure, Age-36 years, Occu: Service as a Junior Clerk on the Establishment of the District Court, Aurangabad presently posted as Junior Clerk with the Family Court, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Honourable the Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, At Mumbai, 2) The Honourable Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, At Mumbai, 3) The Honourable Principal District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, 4) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary to the Government, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.Hemant Surve Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri. R.P. Phatke, A.G.P. For Respondent No.4. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. ORDER RESERVED ON : 29TH JUNE, 2010. ORDER PRONONUCED ON : 12TH JULY, 2010 ORDER (PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.) : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner prayed for following relief: "B) By issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, or any other Writ, Order or direction in said nature, Rule 4 of paragraph No. 625 of the Civil Manual, may kindly be held to be violative of the Constitution of India, in as much as its implementation cannot be made retrospectively, but will be applying prospectively." 3. In short, the case of the Petitioner is that he joined services as Junior Clerk in 3 District Court, Aurangabad on 18th June, 1994. In the year 2000, he passed Lower Standard Departmental Examination. On 26th October, 2003 Rule 4 of paragraph No.625 of the Civil Manual was substituted and a condition was put that the clerk should pass Higher Standard Departmental Examination within 10 years after being posted as a clerk. Due to said Rule, the Petitioner would get only two chances to appear for the Higher Standard Departmental Examination. In December, 2004 the Petitioner appeared for the Higher Standard Departmental Examination. Out of four papers, he passed in three papers. On 16th March, 2005 the Petitioner lost his mother and thus could not appear in the examination and therefore he lost his chance. Representation was made by the Petitioner in June, 2005 to the District Court for getting further chance for appearing in the examination. In view of Rule 4, said request was turned down. 4. On behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 4 affidavit in reply was filed. It was submitted that after substitution of Rule, three chances i.e. in the year 2003, 2004 and 2005, were given to appear for the Higher Standard Examination to the employees, who have completed ten years service. The Petitioner had already passed Lower Standard Departmental Examination in the year 2000 and he could have availed these three chances for appearing in the said examination. 5. We find that the Petitioner though appeared in the examination, but failed. The Petitioner could not avail of next two chances. We do not find any unreasonablity in the amended Rules. Considering the reply filed and the submissions advanced, we do not find that the Petitioner has any legal right to claim further chances. There is no merit in the Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JUNE10/wp3465.07