FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1449 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar'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 :- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) (a) Candidate who secures not less than fifty FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1449 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar'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. [R.M. BORDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-