Order The petitioners, seventeen in number, are Judicial officers having been appointed to the Bihar Judicial Service on the basis of 21st, 22nd and 23rd Bihar Judicial Service Examinations. They have challenged the validity of rule 27 of the Bihar Civil Services (Judicial Branch) (Training and Departmental Examination) Rules, 1963. The aforesaid rule provides that every probationer, within the meaning of the said Rules, has to pass a departmental examination comprising the subjects as mentioned therein. The petitioners admittedly appeared at the departmental examination conducted by the Central Examination Committee, but failed in the Hindi paper. They contend that since Hindi is a compulsory subject at the Bihar Judicial Service Examination, the necessity of passing in Hindi paper also at the said departmental examination should be dispensed with. 2. The said Rules have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution after consultation with the Patna High Court. The various rules as contained therein are conditions of appointment and the petitioners have joined the service knowing fully well that after their appointment to the said service they will have to pass the departmental examination. Having appeared at the Hindi paper and failed, it is no longer open to them to challenge the vires of the said rule. A service rule, can no doubt be challenged by a member of the service in certain cases, as being arbitrary, unjust or opposed to public policy. See the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath (AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1571). The instant case, however, does not come in any of these categories. There is a reasonable nexus between the rule and the object underlying the same namely, attainment of certain degree of proficiency. Hindi is a compulsory subject at various stages of school or University examinations. Can that be a ground to ask for dispensing with a 'departmental' examination in that subject, particularly, when the nature of such examination is different? It may also be stated that passing of the departmental examination is a condition of service not only in the case of Bihar Judicial Service but also in other services including All India Services. 3. Learned counsel made a grievance that the annual increments of the petitioners have been withheld and they are incurring monetary loss every month. It may also be stated that passing of the departmental examination is a condition of service not only in the case of Bihar Judicial Service but also in other services including All India Services. 3. Learned counsel made a grievance that the annual increments of the petitioners have been withheld and they are incurring monetary loss every month. This grievance has no substance because withholding of increment is not as a measure of punishment, but only a consequence of not clearing the departmental examination. In our view, this application is misconceived and frivolous. Considering that the petitioners are fresh entrants in the service, we refrain from making any further observation. 4. This application is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.