- (1.) Petitioners, who are three in number, were the applicants for the post of Assistant Review Officer (ARO) in the employment of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in terms of the Advertisement published on 29.7.2009. PETITIONERS were invited for participation in the Objective Test. They responded thereto by answering the questions put in the prescribed OMR Sheet. After evaluation of the OMR Sheet, it was found that the petitioners achieved 34 marks which was well below the cut of marks calculated as per the ratio of 20 persons against one post for the purposes of further participation in the selections. The last candidate eligible had 58 marks within the category to which the petitioners belong while the petitioners had secured 34 marks. Accordingly the subjective test answer sheets of the petitioners were not evaluated nor they were invited for participation in type list.
(2.) By means of the present writ petition, petitioners seek quashing of the entire selections including declaration of result of the objective test on the ground that question paper had been prepared in English language only and not in Hindi. He submits that the issue with regard to use of Hindi language as a medium in selections for employment in the service of the Allahabad High Court was subject-matter of consideration in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6314 of 1999, Balraj Misra & Another v. Hon'ble The Chief Justice of High Court, Allahabad and others, decided on 14.10.1999 wherein it was laid down that in future selections for promotion on the post of Bench Secretaries (BS) Grade II, the candidates shall not be required to write their answers in English language only. They should be given an option to write their answers in English or Hindi. He further submits that the directions so issued will apply with full force in the matter of appointment as ARO in the establishment of High Court. Reference has been made to Article 351 of the Constitution of India which castes a duty to promote the spread of Hindi language so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of composite culture of India.
(3.) Counsel for the High Court in reply refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti and others v. Union of India and others, 1990 2 SCC 352, as also upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil K.R. Sahastrabudhey v. Director IIT, Kanvur, 1982 AIR(All) 398 He submits that Hindi has not been declared as the official language of the Court till date. Vide Gazette notification dated 10.11.1973, proviso has been added to Rule 8 of Chapter VII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 wherein use of Hindi in place of English has been made optional in any judgment, decree or order to be passed subject to the condition that the same shall be accompanied by an authorized English translation. In these circumstances the decision of the Hon'ble Judges Committee to hold examinations in English only cannot be faulted with. Such decisions are policy decisions which warrant no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. From the judgment referred to above and the factual position as it stands today, it is apparently clear that Hindi has not been declared to be the official language of the High Court till date. Under Clause 2 of Article 348, a power has been conferred upon the Governor of a State with the previous consent of the President to authorize the use of Hindi language in the proceedings of the high Court. The power has not been exercised and only optional use of Hindi under the Official Language Act has been permitted. Further in the case of Prabandhak Samiti and another v. Zila Vidhyalaya Nirikshak and others, 1977 AIR(All) 164 the issue with regard to Hindi being not the official language of the Court has been considered in details. It is not necessary for this Court to reiterate the same.;