Honble VERMA, J.—By the consent of both the sides the matter has been heard for final disposal at the admission stage. The controversy raised before me is a short one. Brijesh Sharma, the petitioner before me, is a citizen of India. He was born on 24.09.1975, and passed Secondary Examination, 1993, from the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer in Second Division. (2). As many as eight vacancies of Lower Division Clerks are lying vacant in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. The recruitments to these vacancies is governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (for short the Rules). Rule 10 (2) of the said Rules lays down academic qualification for direct recruitment to the general cadre of Lower Division Clerks. This rule reads as follows : — "10(2) ; A candidate for direct recruitment to the general cadre must have passed to the Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or any Examination of an University or Board recognised as equivalent thereto by the Government, or any higher examination, and must in addition possess a good knowledge of Hindi written in Devanagri Script. Provided that the above conditions shall not apply to the physically handicapped persons who shall be eligible for recruitment and appointment to the earmarked and reserved posts in accordance with the Rajasthan Employment of the Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976 and orders of the Government issued from time to time in this behalf." (3). Some difficulty was being faced by the District Judges in making recruitment to the posts of Lower Division Clerks, because large number of applications were being received. Obviously the population explosion in the Country has resulted in this situation. To tackle the situation, Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, issued Circular No. G/I/A4(i) (a) 85/93/1714 dated 16.8.1993. The relevant paragraphs of this Circular read as follows : — "In case of receipt of large number of applications with a view to minimise the difficulties in holding the test, the method of short listing of candidates may be adopted as has been decided in 1989 (2) RLR (II) in following manner: — If applications received are more than fifty (50) times of the vacancies advertised, the candidates who have passed Higher Secondary in 1st Division or B.A./B.Sc./ B.Com./M.A./M.Sc./M.Com./LL.B. in any division may only be allowed to participate in the test. Reference be made to the aforesaid Judgment. Reference be made to the aforesaid Judgment. Notification of the recruitment examination should contain the method of short listing of the candidates alongwith other usual particulars. This may kindly be given priority." (4). In pursuance to the aforesaid Circular, District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, issued Notification (Annexure 2), inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment on the post of Lower Division Clerks. Following note was appended to the Notification : — (5). The petitioner, though having passed Secondary Examination in Second Division was not considered eligible to appear at the recruitment test to be held by the District Judge," Jaipur District, Jaipur, because of the aforesaid note, read with circular Annexure 4, the relevant portion of which has already been reproduced above. (6). Aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Court and has inter alia prayed that Annexure 2 and 4 may be declared unconstitutional and may be quashed inasmuch as they are in conflict with the provisions of the Rules and are also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is opposed on behalf of the respondents, who contend that the Circular referred to above and the Notification issued by District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, is perfectly constitutional and may not be quashed. (7). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length and have perused the material placed on record before me. (8). The first question, which falls for consideration of this Court is whether short listing of eligible candidates is permissible under the law or not? (9). Article 51A of the Constitution of India, inter alia mandates that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement, Judiciary, including subordinate judiciary is a vital pillar of our democratic policy and if democracy has to survive in the Country, we ought to recruit best personnel in judiciary whether as peons, as clerks or as Judges. There can be no compromise on the question of quality in making such recruitments. Hence, keeping in view the fact that unemployment is rampant in the Country and against every single post there are very large number of eligible applicants, it has become imperative that some proper mode of short listing ought to be found out. There can be no compromise on the question of quality in making such recruitments. Hence, keeping in view the fact that unemployment is rampant in the Country and against every single post there are very large number of eligible applicants, it has become imperative that some proper mode of short listing ought to be found out. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to contend that provision for short listing of eligible candidates would amount to amendment of the rules. I regret my inability to be persuaded by this limb of the contention. As stated above, short listing of eligible candidates, with a view to obtain the best personnel has become the prime need of the day. That short listing is permissible under the Service Jurisprudence was recognised in a judgment of this Court rendered in Shashi Kumar Purohit etc. vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (1), Of Course, the short listing was held to be a purely executive function, which did not infringe upon the relevant recruitment rules. Hence, I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that short listing is not permissible under the relevant rules. (10). Learned counsel for the petitioner then challenged the aforesaid circular and notification on the ground that no rational criterion has been adopted for short listing the candidates. The criterion adopted has no nexus to the object to be achieved and, therefore, the circular in question and the notification in question deserve to be quashed. A bare perusal of Annexure 4 goes to show that it lays down that if applications received are more than fifty times of the vacancies advertised, the candidates who have passed Higher Secondary in 1st Division or B.A./B.Sc./B.Com./M.A./M.Sc./M.Com./LL.B. in any division may only be allowed to participate in the test. This is also the import of the note appended to Annexure 2. It is to be seen if this criterion of short listing is rational and if so, whether it bears any nexus to the object to be achieved. Mr. Farooq, vehemently contended that it was the sole prerogative of the Justice-executive to decide as to what shall be the criterion for short listing. I regret my inability to subscribe to this view. In Shashi Kumars case (supra) the learned Single Judge observed "it is always open for the Government to lay down a rational criterion and apply the same uniformly for all the candidates. I regret my inability to subscribe to this view. In Shashi Kumars case (supra) the learned Single Judge observed "it is always open for the Government to lay down a rational criterion and apply the same uniformly for all the candidates. But the criterion should be rational and it should have nexus with the object sought to be achieved." After making the aforesaid observations, the learned Single Judge proceeded to examine the various facts of the criterion which had been challenged before him. Hence, in my opinion, this Court can definitely go into the question if the criterion laid down by the circular is rational and has direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved. A reading of the Schedule 1, Part I, annexed to the Rules goes to show a competitive examination for recruitment to post of Lower Division Clerks is required to include following subjects :- (1) Written Test in English, (2) Written Test in Hindi, This has to be followed by English or Hindi type-test. The standard and scope of written papers has been laid down as follows .— Section A: Written 1.English :The paper will be set to test the candidates proficiency in the language. Besides an essay to be written in English it may include translation from Hindi into English, precis writing and use of idioms etc. and dictation. The standard of the paper will be that of the Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Board. Grace marks upto a maximum of five may be given for good handwriting and deduction upto five marks may be made for bad handwriting. 2.Hindi: The paper will be set to test the candidates proficiency in the language. Besides an essay to be written on one or several specified subjects, it may include precis writing, letter writing, use of idioms etc. and dictation. Grace marks upto maximum of five may be given for good hand writing and deduction upto five marks may be made for bad handwriting. Section-B: Type 3. Type: Speed in English type 25 words p.m. Speed in Hindi type -20 words p.m. 1. The procedure for testing the speed shall be as laid down by the Government from time to time. 2. Those candidates only who pass in the written test shall be eligible for appearing in the type-writing test. The candidates shall bring their own type-writers. Type: Speed in English type 25 words p.m. Speed in Hindi type -20 words p.m. 1. The procedure for testing the speed shall be as laid down by the Government from time to time. 2. Those candidates only who pass in the written test shall be eligible for appearing in the type-writing test. The candidates shall bring their own type-writers. The above provision gives a clue to the mind of the rule making authority in making selection for the post of Lower Division Clerks. The emphasis is on a proficiency in English & Hindi. (11). Now, I will examine the criterion, which has been laid down in the circular Annexure 4 and the Notification Annexure 2. A bare look at circular and Notification would go to show that for purposes of short listing candidates who have passed Secondary in 1st division have been equated with those B.A./B.Sc./ B.Com./M.A./M.Sc./M.Com./LL.B. even though they might have passed the said examination in any division. Mr. Paker Farooq was at pains to urge that a person with higher qualifications would be a better Lower Division Clerk than a person with the lower qualification of Secondary School Examination. In reply, to this, Mr. Mittal pointed out that the criterion so adopted would exclude those who have passed Higher Secondary Examination in II Division and who have better performance than those who have later on passed their B.A./B.Sc./ B.Com./M.A./M.Com. in third division. The contention has great substance. A proper mode of laying down modalities for short listing the candidates would have been to say that those who obtained first division in Secondary Examination will get preference of those who obtained second division and so on. By the impugned circular and notification weightage has been given to those, who might have acquired higher qualifications but who might have had inferior performance at the Secondary Examination level. The impugned criterion would give weightage to those who had the means of pursuing higher studies but would exclude those who had better performance at the Secondary Examination but could not pursue their higher studies due to various reasons. The impugned circular would have the result of ousting the candidates who belong to poorer class of Society, the have notes of the Society and could not pursue further education because of one reason or other. In my opinion to give preference to a B.A./B.Sc./ B.Com./M.Sc./M.Com. The impugned circular would have the result of ousting the candidates who belong to poorer class of Society, the have notes of the Society and could not pursue further education because of one reason or other. In my opinion to give preference to a B.A./B.Sc./ B.Com./M.Sc./M.Com. or LL.B. having any division over a candidate who had second division in the Secondary Examination, would be violative of equality clause of Constitution of India. Moreover, these higher qualifications may have nothing to do with proficiency either in English or Hindi or for that matter with typing. In the present case the petitioner has passed his Secondary Examination in Second Division. The present qualification for short listing excludes the petitioner but gives an opportunity to those who might have poorer performance than petitioner at the Secondary Examination in the two subjects but might have obtained higher qualifications otherwise. In my opinion for short listing the candidates, the Circular issued by the Registrar of the High Court as well as the Notification issued by the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, do not take care of this situation and hence cannot be sustained inasmuch as the higher qualifications have no nexus with the objects to be achieved namely selection of persons with proficiency in English and Hindi. (12). Now the question is whether this Court should lay down a criterion or it should be left to the Registrar of the High Court and the District Judge to evolve a suitable criterion. In my opinion, it would not be proper for my part to lay down any criterion because it would be the prerogative of the executive government in the judiciary. However, the executive government in the judiciary has to keep in mind that the criterion to be evolved by it has to be rational and must bear nexus to the object to be achieved. (13). Mr. Mittal raised certain other points also but they are not germane for decision of the case and would amount to only academic exercise. Judicial Courts do not sit to decide purely academic questions. Hence, I refrain from going into other contentions raised by Mr. Mittal. (14). No other point was raised before me. (15). In view of what I have stated above, I accept this Writ Petition, quash Annexure 4 as well as Annexure 2 to the extent indicated above viz. Judicial Courts do not sit to decide purely academic questions. Hence, I refrain from going into other contentions raised by Mr. Mittal. (14). No other point was raised before me. (15). In view of what I have stated above, I accept this Writ Petition, quash Annexure 4 as well as Annexure 2 to the extent indicated above viz. the extent they lay down criterion for short listing of candidates on the basis of higher qualifications having no nexus with the object to be achieved. The Registrar of the High Court as well as the District Judge shall be free to evolve a proper criterion for short listing the candidates, keeping in view the observations made above. (16). The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (17). In the circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.