1 Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8952 OF 2009 1 Mr Prashant P Giri, ] Age 24 years, occ. Advocate ] Residing at “Pushpgiri Niwas” ] Darga Road, Bank Colony, ] Parbhani – 431 401 ] ] 2 Mr.Rajhans P Survase ] Age 25 years, Occ. Advocate ] Residing at “Survase Nivas” ] Phule Nagar, Sailu ] Taluka – Sailu, District-Parbhani ] ] 3 Mr.Vinod R Paricharak, ] Age 31 years, Occ. Advocate ] Residing at Shivaji Nagar ] Solapur Road, At/Post ] Madha, Taluka Madha, ] District – Solapur ] ] 4 Mr.Pathan Firdos Musakhan, ] Age 26 years, Occ. Advocate ] Residing at Near Gauspura ] Masjid Rabel Nagar, Nanded ] Road, Latur, District – Latur ] ] 5 Ms.Vidya Vijayrao Supekar, ] Age 26 years, Occ. Advocate ] Residing at C/o. V U Supekar, ] “Dwarka”, Ram Nagar, Darga ] Road, Parbhani, District Parbhani ] ] 2 6 Mr.Satav Pratap Rajaram ] Age 25 years, Occ : Advocate ] Residing at Laul, Taluka Madha ] District Solapur ] ] 7 Ms.Meera A Aduke ] Age 29 years, Occ. Advocate ] Residing at ] Taluka – Miraj, District Sangli ]... Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Through its Secretary ] Law & Judiciary Department ] Mantralaya Mumbai ] ] 2 The High Court of Bombay ] Through its Registrar General ] Fort Mumbai 400 001 ] ] 3 The Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Through its Deputy ] Secretary, Bank of India Building ] IIIrd Floor, M G Road, Hutama ] Chowk, Mumbai 400 001 ]... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3155 OF 2009 1 Bar Association, Karjat ] Dist.Raigad, ] Shri Satish Dharma Dayre ] President, Age 27 years ] R/at Manivali, Taluka Karjat ] Dist Raigad ] 3 2 Panvel Bar Association, ] Shri Suresh Pandurang Khanavkar ] President ] Age : 55 years, R/at Panvel. ] ] 3 Shri Uday Sonavane ] Advocate ] Age 32 years, R/at 212, Nav Visava] Society, Dattatraya Colony, Milind ] Nagar, Kalyan(W), Dist.Thane ] ] 4 Shri Roshan Khobragade, ] Advocate, ] Age : 32 yrs. r/at : 306 ] Ravi, A1 Lokgram, Kalyan(E) ] Dist. Thane ] ] 5 Shri Vijay Manohar Mundhe ] Age 28 yrs. R/at : Devi Chandra ] Krupa Bldg. Ganesh Chowk, ] Bhatwadi, Kisan Nagar No.3 ] Thane (W) ] ] 6 Shri Shantaram Shankar Datar ] Advocate, Age : 66 Yrs. ] R/at : Neelanth dhara, F-3/209 ] Adharwadi Road, Kalyan (w) ] ] 7 Shri Suhas Sampat Telang ] Age 33 yrs. ] Advocate, R/at Samartha Nagar ] Nandivali, Dombivli (W) ]... Petitioners. Versus 1 Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Through its Member ] 4 Secretary, Having its office at ] 3rd Floor, Bank of India Building ] Mahatma Gandhi Road, ] Fort, Mumbai-2 ] ] 2 Bar Council of Maharashtra and ] Goa Through its President, ] High Court Annexed Building ] Mumbai 400 032 ] ] 3 The State of Maharashtra ] Through Secretary ] Of Law and Justice ] Mantralaya, Mumbai ]... Respondents. WITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.84 OF 2009 Marathi Bhasha Sanrakshan & ] Vikas Sanstha ] An NGO, registered under the ] The Bombay Public Trust and ] The Society Registration Act-1860 ] Thr’its Jt. Sec. Mr.Santosh Laxman ] Agre. Having its office at ] Gr. Floor, Vaidya Building ] Behind IDBI Bank, Near St.John ] Baptist High School, Thane-400601]... Petitioner versus 1 Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Through its Member ] Secretary, 5th Floor, Bank of India ] Building, Hutama Chowk ] Mumbai – 400 23 ] ] 5 2 Registrar General ] High Court of Judicature ] Mumbai 400 032. ] ] 3 State of Maharashtra ] Through its Principal Secretary ] of Law & Judiciary Department ] Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032 ]... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4683 OF 2008 Raju S/o Tukaram Ingle, ] Age 30 years, Occ. Legal Practitioner, ] R/o Near S.P.Office, Hingoli ] Taluka Hingoli, District Hingoli ] versus 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Through its Secretary ] Law & Judiciary Department ] Mantralaya Mumbai ] (Copy to be served on the Govt. ] Pleader High Court Bench at ] Aurangabad ] ] 2 The Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Through its Deputy ] Secretary, Bank of India Building ] 3rd Floor, M G Road, Hutama ] Chowk, Mumbai 400 001 ] ] 3 The High Court of Bombay ] Through its Registrar General ] Fort Mumbai ]... Respondents. 6 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5944 OF 2008 Mr.Vasant S/o.Shriramji Yadav ] Age 25 Yrs. Occ. Advocate, ] R/o Khadka, Tq.Sonpeth ] District Parbhani ]..Petitioner versus 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Through its Secretary ] Law & Judiciary Department ] Mantralaya Mumbai ] (Copy to be served on the Govt. ] Pleader High Court Bench at ] Aurangabad ] ] 2 The Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Through its Deputy ] Secretary, Bank of India Building ] 3rd Floor, M G Road, Hutama ] Chowk, Mumbai 400 001 ] ] 3 The High Court of Bombay ] Through its Registrar General ] Fort Mumbai ]... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6200 OF 2008 Amitsingh S/o Ranjitsingh Mohane ] Age 28 years. Occ : Practicing Lawyer ] R/o Sambhaji Nagar, Bhokardan Road ] Jalna, Dist. Jalna ].. Petitioner versus 7 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Through : The Secretary ] Law & Judiciary Department ] Mantralaya Mumbai-32 ] (Copy to be served on Government] Pleader High Court of ] Judicature Bombay ] Bench at Aurangabad ] ] 2 The Registrar General ] High Court of Bombay ] ] 3 The Secretary, ] Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, ] Bank of India Building 3rd Floor ] Mahatma Gandhi Marg, ] Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-1 ]... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1751 OF 2009 Nandkumar S/o Tukaram Shelke ] Age 37 years, Occupation : Nil ] R/0 Laxshmi Colony, Pradnya Nagar ] Cantonment, Aurangabad ].. Petitioner versus 1 The State of Maharashtra ] through the Secretary ] Law and Judiciary Department ] Mantralaya, Mumbai ] ] 2 The District and Sessions Judge ] District Beed. ]... Respondents. 8 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1752 OF 2009 1 Padmabhushan S/o Pandurang Paratwagh] Age 27 years, Occ Legal Profession ] R/o. H. No.A-22/10, Shivaji Nagar, ] Cidco, 11th Scheme Aurangabad ] ] 2 Siddharth S/o Vishvanath Pandit ] Age 24 years, Occ : Legal Profession. ] R/o At Post Jikthan, Tq. Gangapur ] District Aurangabad ] ] 3 Virendra s/o Vasudeorao Jahagirdar ] Age 26 years, Occ : Legal Profession ] R/o. “Vatsalya” H.No.2-4-17 ] Mills Colony, Kotwalpura ] Aurangabad. ] ] 4 Kiran S/o. Bhaskar Kulkarni ] Age : 25 years, Occu : Legal profession ] R/o. N-11, F-12/7, Navjeevan Colony ] Shopping Centre, Hudco, Aurangabad ] ] 5 Kum. Aditi d/o Abhay Godbole ] Age 24 years, Occu : Legal Profession ] R/o. C/o. Madhav Soman ] Brahmin Galli, Begumpura ] Aurangabad ] ] 6 Vikas s/o Balkrishnarao Deshmukh ] Age : 24 years, Occu; Legal Profession. ] R/o Joshi Galli, Majalgaon ] District : Beed ]... Petitioners 9 versus 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Through its Secretary ] Law & Judiciary Department ] Mantralaya Mumbai-400032 ] ] 2 The High Court of Bombay, ] Through its Registrar General ] Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ] ] 3 The Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Through its Deputy ] Secretary, Bank of India Building ] IIIrd Floor, M G Road, Hutama ] Chowk, Mumbai 400 001 ]... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1784 OF 2009 1 Shaikh Asphak Taher ] Age 26 years, Occ Advocacy ] R/o Naigaon, Post.Savangi ] Tq.Dist.Aurangabad ] ] 2 Balraj Ram Reddy ] Age 26 years Occ Advocacy ] R/o. Padampani Colony ] Railway Station Road, Aurangabad] Tq.Dist.Aurangabad. ].. Petitioners. versus 1 The State of Maharashtra through] Law & Judiciary Department ] Mantralaya Mumbai ] (Copy for respondent No.1 ] to be served on the Govt. ] Pleader High Court Bench at ] 10 Aurangabad ] 2 The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay] through its Registrar General ] Fort, Mumbai. ] ] 3 The Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Through its Deputy ] Secretary, Bank of India Building ] 3rd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road ] Fort, Mumbai ]... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1785 OF 2009 1 Asmita d/o Eknath More ] Age 27 years, Occ Legal Profession] C/o Eknath More, Plot No.13 ] Pratibha D.Ed College, Lokmitra ] Nagar, Purna Road, Nanded ] ] 2 Balaji s/o Atmaram Panchal ] Age 26 years, Occ Legal Profession] C/o. Yashoda Niwas, Swati Nagar ] Parali Vaijnath, Tq.Parli ] Dist.Beed ].. Petitioners. versus 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Through its Secretary ] Law & Judiciary Department ] Mantralaya Mumbai ] 2 The High Court of Bombay ] Through its Registrar General ] Fort Mumbai-400 001 ] 11 ] 3 The Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Through its Deputy ] Secretary, Bank of India Building ] III Floor, M G Road, Hutama ] Chowk, Mumbai 400 001 ]... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1786 OF 2009 Jayanti d/o Anantrao Choudhari ] Age 26 yrs. Occ Advocacy ] r/o Taroda (Bk.), Tq.And Dist.Nanded ]... Petitioner. versus 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Through Ministry of ] Law & Judiciary Department ] Mantralaya Mumbai ] (Copy for respondent No.1 to be ] served to the Govt. Pleader, ] High Court of Bombay Bench at ] Aurangabad ] 2 The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay] Through its Registrar General ] Fort Mumbai ] ] 3 The Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Through its Deputy ] Secretary, Bank of India Building ] 3rd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road ] Fort, Mumbai ]... Respondents. 12 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1787 OF 2009 1 Pankaj s/o Manmohan Bidada ] Age 27 years, occup.Advocate ] r/o. Main Road Kallam, Tq.Kallam] Dist.Osmanabad ] ] 2 Pankaj s/o Bakuldas Deshpande ] Age-26 years Occup. Advocate ] R/o Sneha Nagar H.No.232 ] Vasama Road, Parbhani, ] Dist.Parbhani ]... Petitioners. versus 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Through its Secretary ] Law & Judiciary Department ] Mantralaya Mumbai-32 ] (Copy served through the ] Government Pleader High Court ] Aurangabad) ] ] 2 Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Head Office- ] State Bank of India Building ] 3 Floor, MGM Road, ] For Mumbai-2 ]... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1788 OF 2009 1 Saifuddin Bashabhai Shaikh ] Age 27 years, Occu -Student ] R/o. Mohite Galli, Solapur Road ] Tq. & Dist. Osmandaba ]... Petitioner. 13 Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Copy to be served on G.P.High ] Court of Bombay Bench at ] Aurangabad ] ] 2 Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission ] Building of Bank of India ] 3rd Floor, Mahtma Gandhi Road ] Fort, Bombay-1 ]... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1789 OF 2009 1 Pravin S/o Rajendra Atre ] Age 26 years, Occu -Student ] R/o. S R T Quarters, Near AIR ] Tq. & Dist. Osmandaba ]... Petitioner. Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Copy to be served on G.P.High ] Court of Bombay Bench at ] Aurangabad ] ] 2 Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission ] Building of Bank of India ] 3rd Floor, Mahtma Gandhi Road ] Fort, Bombay-1 ]... Respondents. 14 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1790 OF 2009 Mr.Vasant S/o. Shriramji Yadav ] Age – 25 yrs. Occu Advocate ] R/o. Khadka Tq.Sonpeth ] Dist.Parbhani ]... Petitioner. versus 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Through its Secretary ] Law & Judiciary Department ] Mantralaya Mumbai ] (Copy to be served on the Govt. ] Pleader High Court Bench at ] Aurangabad ] ] 2 The Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Through its Deputy ] Secretary, Bank of India Building ] 3rd Floor, M G Road, Hutama ] Chowk, Mumbai 400 001 ] ] 3 The High Court of Bombay ] Through its Registrar General ] Fort Mumbai ]... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9419 OF 2009 Prashant Vishwanath Suryawanshi ] Age 26 years Adult Occ Advocate ] Residing at Akhada Balapur ] Pin Code 431 701 ] Taluka Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli ]... Petitioner. 15 Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Through Ministry of ] Law & Judiciary Department ] Mantralaya Mumbai ] 2 The High Court of Bombay ] Through its Registrar General ] Fort Mumbai-400 001 ] ] 3 The Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Through its Deputy ] Secretary, Bank of India Building ] IIIrd Floor, M.G.Road ] Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai 400001 ]... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9437 OF 2009 Sarika Mahadev Waghole ] age 25 years, Occupation Advocate ] R/o. At Parinche, Tq. Purandar ] Dist. Pune, Pin 412311 ]... Petitioner. versus 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Through its Secretary ] Law & Judiciary Department ] Mantralaya Mumbai ] ] 2 The High Court of Bombay ] Through its Registrar General ] Fort Mumbai-400 001 ] ] 16 3 The Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Through its Deputy ] Secretary, Bank of India Building ] IIIrd Floor, M.G. Road ] Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001 ]... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2353 OF 2009 (ORIGINAL SIDE) Nikhil Ranjan ] An Indian Inhabitant of ] Mumbai age about 29 years ] residing at C/o Dadabhai ] Building No.4, Room No.15, ] N M Joshi Marg, Mumbai 400 013. ]... Petitioner versus 1 The Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Through its ] Chairman, having its office at ] Bank of India Building ] 3rd Floor, M.G.Road, ] Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 ] 2 The Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Through its Dy. ] Secretary, having its office at ] Bank of India Building ] 3rd Floor, M.G.Road, ] Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 ] ] 3 The State of Maharashtra ] Through its Principal ] Secretary, Department of Law ] and Judiciary, Mantralaya, ] Mumbai – 400 032 ] 17 ] 4 The Registrar General, ] High Court of Judicature at ] Bombay, Mumbai-400 032 ].... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.990 OF 2009 1 Syed Laikh Baba s/o Mir Mumtaz Ali ] Age 26 years Occ Legal Profession ] R/o Yasmin Complex, 2nd floor ] Opposite BMC Bank, City Chowk ] Aurangabad ] ] 2 Shaikh Imran Khan S/o Shaikh Yakub ] Age 26 years, Occ Legal Profession ] R/o. Silk Mill Colony ] Behind Railway Station ] Dist. Aurangabad ]... Petitioners. Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Through its Secretary ] Law & Judiciary Department ] Mantralaya Mumbai-400 032 ] ] 2 The High Court of Bombay ] Through its Registrar General ] Fort Mumbai-400 001 ] ] 3 The Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Through its Deputy ] 18 Secretary, Bank of India Building ] IIIrd Floor, M.G. Road ] Hutatma Chowk, ] Fort Mumbai -400 001 ]... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1858 OF 2010 1 Nitinkumar s/o Chandrashekhar ] Swami ] Age 27 years, Occ Legal Profession] R/o “Prasad” Plot No.18, ] Gut No.91, ] West of Renuka Mata Mandir Gate] Beed ByPass Road, Satara Parisar ] Dist. Aurangabad ] ] 2 Madhukar S/o Ramchandra ] Vasumate ] Age 26, Occu : Legal Profession ] R/o. Vasant Nagar ] Dist. Nanded ] ] 3 Sheetal D/o. Vilas Salunke ] Age 24, Occ Legal Profession ] R/o Yashprabha Apartment, ] Flat No.4, Vishal Nagar, Garkheda ] Aurangabad ].... Petitioners. versus 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Through the Secretary, ] Law & Judiciary Department ] Mumbai ] (Copy to be served on the GP, ] for the State, at High Court, ] Aurangabad) ] 19 2 Deputy Secretary, ] The Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, ] Bank of India Building ] IIIrd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Rd ] Fort, Mumbai-01 ] ] 3 The Registrar General ] High Court of Judicature ] of Bombay 400 032 ]... Respondents. Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioner in WP 8952/09, 9419/09 Mr. A A Garge for the Petitioner in WP 3155/09 Mr. Ganesh Sovani for the Petitioner in PIL No.84/09 Mr. P S Patil for the Petitioner in WP No.9437/09 Mr. J G Reddy for the Petitioner in WP No.990 of 2009 Mr. Venkatesh Dhond with Mr. R D Rane for Respondent-High Court in WP Nos.8952/09, 1752/09, 1784/09, 4683/08 and 5944/08. Mr. C R Sonawane, AGP, for the State. Mr. V S Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 in WP Nos. 990/09 and 1858/10. Mr. P S Dani for Respondent No.2 in PIL No.84 of 2009 None for the Petitioners in rest of the Petitions. CORAM : A M KHANWILKAR & R M SAVANT, JJ Judgment reserved on : 15 th April 2010 Judgment delivered on: 07 th May 2010 JUDGMENT [PER R M SAVANT, J] Rule in all the Petitions and PIL. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 20 1. The above Writ Petition and the companion Writ Petitions as well as Public Interest Litigation lay a challenge to the Recruitment Rules to the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class. The said challenge is especially to Rule 5.3(i) and 5.3(ii). In so far as, PIL No.84 of 2009 and Writ Petition No.3155 of 2009 are concerned the challenge to the said Rules is on the basis that though Marathi is declared as a language of the lower Courts, the said Rules do not provide for a paper in Marathi in the written examination. The advertisement issued pursuant to the Rules for filling the posts which were advertised on 17th December 2008 is also challenged on the ground that choice of answering the examination in Marathi has not been given. 2 In so far as challenge to the Rules is concerned, Writ Petition No.8952 of 2009 is treated as the lead matter and therefore the facts in the said writ petition would be cited for convenience sake. 21 3 The Petitioners in the said writ petition are Law Graduates having obtained the degree of law from various universities in the State of Maharashtra viz. University of Pune, Shivaji University, Marathwada Tirth University. The Petitioners are qualified advocates and are registered with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. Some of the Petitioners have passed five year law course with 1st class. The Petitioners came across an advertisement issued by the Respondent No.3 – the Maharashtra Public Service Commission for the post of C.J.J.D and J.M.F.C. The examination for the said post was to be held in two stages, i.e. Preliminary Examination and thereafter all those who qualified in the Preliminary Examination would be permitted to appear in the Main Examination and only those who passed in the Main Examination were to be called for viva/voce/interview. The advertisement inter alia disclosed the scheme of selection. The said Scheme as mentioned herein above involved a written examination followed by 22 viva-voce The qualifications for the said post mentioned in the advertisement were as under :- 4. Conditions of Eligibility :- Any one of the following A, B, C, D, E or F. A) For Advocate, Attorney or Pleader :- Age :- As on 1st April, 2009 not less than 21 and not more than 35 years. Qualification :-Candidate must hold a degree in law and must have practiced as an Advocate, Attorney or Pleader in the High Court or Courts Subordinates there to for not less than 3 years on 17th December, 2008. Note :- In the case of Public Prosecutors, their service in that capacity will be taken as practice at the Bar. OR B) For fresh Law Graduates :- Age :- As on 1st April 2009 not less than 21 and not more than 25 years. Qualification :- (i) Candidate must has secured the degree in law by passing all the examinations leading to the degree in the first attempt and, (ii) Has secured in the final year examination of the degree in Law or in 23 the case of candidate holding Masters Degree in Law in final year examination not less than fifty five percent marks, OR C) Members of ministerial staff to the High Court OR D) Members of ministerial staff to the Courts subordinates to High Court OR E) Members of staff working as Legal Assistant and above in the legal section of the Law and Judiciary Department in Mantralaya OR F) Members of ministerial Staff of the Office of the Govt. Pleaders attached to those court. Age :- For C, D, E & F – As on 1st april 2009 not less than 21 and not more than 45 years provided such employees has put in minimum three years of service after obtaining degree in law.” By Notification dated 25th August 2008, the Governor of Maharashtra, made the rules known as the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules 2008 (referred to for brevities sake as the Rules of 2008) regulating the recruitment to the said post of CJJD and JMFC in the Maharashtra Judicial Service wherein under Chapter III Recruitment Rule 5 prescribes the 24 Method of Recruitment, Qualification and Age Limit. Rule 5.3 (d) & (e) relates to Knowledge of Marathi, reference to the said Rule would be made in the latter part of this Judgment. 4. The Preliminary Examination was held on 10th July 2009 in which all the Petitioners qualified for the Main Examination. Thereafter Main Examination was held on 30th September 2009 in which examination all the above Petitioners were successful. The Petitioners were given call letters for interview so as to remain present for interview on various dates between 6th October 2009 to 12th October 2009. It is the case of the Petitioners that when the Petitioners entered the office of the Respondent No.3 for the interview, they were orally informed that they were not qualified to appear for the said examination and hence the Petitioners were not entitled to be called for interview. The Petitioners in all the above Petitions have been disqualified either on the ground of being over age or 25 disqualified on the ground of not obtaining degree in law by passing all the examinations leading to the degree in the first attempt. It appears that the Petitioners were communicated that they were not fulfilling the eligibility condition as prescribed by the advertisement and therefore appearance of the Petitioners at the Preliminary Examination as well as Main Examination was in breach of the Rules. 5. Aggrieved by the action of the Respondent No.3 in disqualifying the Petitioners after they having passed the Preliminary Examination as well Main Examination that the Petitioners have filed the instant Petitions. In so far as PIL No.84 of 2009 and Writ Petition No.3155 of 2009 are concerned, the petitioners in the said proceedings seek to espouse the cause of Marathi vis-a-vis the said examination. 26 6. On behalf of the Respondent No.2 an affidavit has been filed by Shri Sangitrao S Patil, the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The claim and contentions in the above Petitions have been dealt with in the said Affidavit in reply. The exception carved out in favour of the fresh law graduates has been justified and explained. The reasons for requirement of having passed the examinations leading to the degree of law in the first attempt has also been stated. As also the Petitioners’ case based on Article 320(5) has been dealt with. 7. We have heard Mr.Uday Warunjikar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 8952/09. On behalf of the Petitioners Mr.Uday Warunjikar led the arguments, supplemented by the arguments made by Shri Ganesh Sovani in PIL No.84 of 2009, Mr.A A Garge in Writ Petition No.3155 of 2009 and Mr.P S Patil in Writ Petition No.9437 of 2009. 27 8. The submissions of the Petitioners in the above Petitions as well as the PIL can be segregated in two groups which are as follows :- A] SUBMISSIONS AS REGARDS CHALLENGE TO RULES 5.3(i) and 5.3(ii) OF THE MAHARASHTRA JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES 2008 :- i) That the said Rules of 2008, though have been made in consultation with the Maharashtra Public Service Commission have not been tabled in both the Houses of Legislature of this State,