- (1.) This petition has been filed by a practicing Lawyer intending to appear as a candidate in the forthcoming Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service - 2016 who has made several prayers including a declaration that Appendix - G to Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules be read as ultra vires to Rule 11 of the said Rules on the ground that the respondent-High Court has failed to make a provision for question papers to be also in Hindi in spite of the fact that the option to write answers is available to the candidates in Hindi Devnagri Script. A prayer has been made that the question papers for the said direct recruitment examination should be prepared bilingually in Hindi and English languages both or else this would violate the constitutional provisions of Article 348 (2) of the Constitution of India read with Article 351. For this, reliance has been placed on several judgments including the Division Bench judgment of this Court Prabhandhak Samiti and another v. Zila Vidyalaya Nirikshak and others, 1977 AIR(All) 164. The order passed by a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition on the issue of Court Language in the State of U.P. dated 17.10.2012 in Writ Petition No.54824 of 2012, Committee of Management Kanya Vidyalaya Kisrauli and others v. State of U.P. and others has also been placed before the Court.
(2.) The grievance therefore in short is that the question paper for the examination for the said recruitment in Higher Judicial Service should be in Hindi as well as in English. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid constitutional provisions as well as the decisions that have been relied upon together with the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules therefore clearly substantiate the stand of the petitioner and an appropriate writ be issued so that the same may be implemented in the preliminary examinations that are scheduled to commence on 31.7.2016.
(3.) Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned Counsel for the High Court and the learned Standing Counsel have both relied on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and another, Writ Petition No.57216 of 2007 dismissed on 21.11.2007. The said judgment is extracted hereunder:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Sthalekar, learned counsel for the respondents. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has come up for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondent to supply the question papers of General Knowledge and Law of HJS Exams-2007, which are scheduled to be held from 23.12.2007 in Hindi also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for selection and appointment in the U.P. Higher Judicial Services and has been issued admit-card to appear in the examination with roll no. 2254. It is submitted that since in the aforesaid examination, the candidates have choice to answer General Knowledge and Law papers either in Hindi or in English, therefore, the candidates intending to give answer in Hindi may bear confusion regarding questions if the questions are not given in Hindi also and, as such, a mandamus may be issued commanding the respondents to give Hindi version also of the aforesaid question papers. On the other hand, Sri Amit Sthalekar has produced the application form of the petitioner in which in clause 18(B) the petitioner has stated that he is proficient in English. He, therefore, submits that once the petitioner has admitted that he is proficient in English, there appears to be no reason to insist for providing Hindi version also of the question papers. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the petitioner is proficient in English. In the writ petition also, in para-4, he has stated that if the question papers are given in English only and Hindi version is not provided, the other persons participating in the examination may bear confusion regarding questions. He, thus, has not claimed any difficulty for himself. We are, therefore, of the view that the petition is misconceived and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Before parting, we may also observe that here is a case where the petitioner, admittedly, is a candidate for recruitment and appointment in U.P. Higher Judicial Service. Once appointed, he will be a member of the cadre of Higher Judicial Service where he will have to discharge judicial functions, which includes appellate and revisional jurisdiction over the judgements of the Civil Judges (Junior & Senior Divisions) besides the original jurisdiction. Most of the Statutes are in English. The Judgements cited by the learned counsels, if that of Supreme Court, they are all in English and mostly the judgements of the High Court are also in English. If a person does not understand a question in English correctly or properly, we fail to understand as to how he will be able to effectively understand the statutory provisions and the authorities of High Court and Supreme Court, which are in English, in order to correctly adjudicate the complicated civil, criminal and other disputes. In U.P., since the documents, which come as pleadings and evidence in the Subordinate Courts, are normally in Hindi and even the witnesses etc. depose their statements in Hindi, therefore, a provision has been made requiring a member of Higher Judicial Service to be proficient in Hindi, but that does not mean that he should not be proficient in English. If one is not proficient in English and is not able to understand English version of questions correctly, such a person cannot be said to be fit for selection and appointment in Higher Judicial Service. Moreover, the attempt of the petitioner at this stage to approach this Court and file this writ petition does not appear to be bonafide inasmuch examination is going to be commenced from 23.11.2007 and it is understandable that the entire arrangement for the said examination must have already been made. Any request, like the present one, at this stage, if accepted, would result in postponement of the aforesaid examination, which would not be in the interest of either litigant public at large or for dispensation and administration of justice inasmuch a very large number of Courts are lying vacant due to non availability of Judicial Officers. Recruitment of Judicial Officers at the earliest is the need of time and there should not be any attempt to delay the said recruitment, particularly on the basis of such frivolous litigation. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.";