JUDGEMENT Cyriac Joseph, C.J. 1 Since Identical questions arise for consideration in the above three writ petitions they were heard together and they are being disposed of through this Common judgment. 2. The petitioners in the three writ petitions are applicants for appointment by direct recruitment to the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the "Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service. They nave submitted applications in response to the Notification issued by the High Court of Uttaranchal inviting aplications. They have received admit cards for the written examination scheduled to be held on 23-10-05. They are aggrieved by the Instruction given in the admit card that “answers must be written in English only." They pray that the said instruction may be quashed and the respondent- Registrar General, high Court of Uttaranchal may be directed to allow them to write the answers in Hindi. 3. According to the petitioners, either in the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) or in the Notification issued by the high Court of Uttaranchal inviting applications, there is no stipulation that the written examination will be held in English or that the "answers must be written only in English. It is contended that the only requirement under Rule of the Rules is that “a candidate for recruitment to the service must possess a thorough knowledge of Hindi (in Devanagri script) and English." It is pointed out that in the Notification Inviting applications also, the only requirement, that ,”the applicant possess thorough knowledge of Hindi (in Devanagri script) "and English. “In the Notification there is no stipulation that the written examination will be held in English or that the candidates must write answers only in English. It is stated that in the past when written eX2minations were held for selection and appointment to the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the U.P. Higher Judicial Service, the candidates were given the option to write answers either in English or in Hindi. It is further stated that in the above circumstances the petitioners expected that in the written examination to be held on 23-10-05 they would be allowed the option to write answers either in English or in Hindi. According to the petitioners, the instruction in the admit card that answers must be written in English only, came as a rude shock to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the instruction in the admit card that answers must be written in English only, came as a rude shock to the petitioners. It is contended that in the absence of any such stipulation in the Rules and in the Notification issued by High Court inviting applications, the instruction in the admit card that answers must be written in English only, is, illegal, un authorised, arbitrary and unjust. It is stated that the, petitioners who completed their studies in the schools and the colleges in the Hindi Medium will find it difficult, if not impossible, to writ the answers in English and they will be put to a serious disadvantage in the examination in comparison with the candidates who had the opportunity to complete their studies in English medium. It is contended that what is required to be tested is the candidate's knowledge of law and not his knowledge of English or his ability to express his knowledge of law in English. According to the petitioners, the proficiency in English as required under the Rules can be tested even without insisting that the answers must be written only in English. It is pointed out by the petitioners that the written examination consists of three papers of 100 marks each and that in Part- I! of Paper-1, 50 marks are set apart for (a) Essay in English (b) Precis writing in English and (c) Translation from Hindi to English and from English to Hindi. According to the petitioners, Part-I! of Paper- 1 will be sufficient to assess the proficiency of a candidate in English. It is further 'contended by the petitioners that when the official language of the subordinate courts is Hindi and when the policy of the State is to promote Hindi language, there Is no justification for preventing the petitioners from writing the answers in Hindi. 4. Appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service is admittedly governed by the provisions contained in the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2004. According to Rule 5 of the Rules, recruitment to the service shall be made; (a) By Promotion from amongst the cadre of. 4. Appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service is admittedly governed by the provisions contained in the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2004. According to Rule 5 of the Rules, recruitment to the service shall be made; (a) By Promotion from amongst the cadre of. Civil Judge (Senior Division); (b) By selection through limited competitive examination from amongst Civil Judges (Senior Division); (c) By direct recruitment of Advocates of not less than seven years standing on the first day of January of the year in which the notice inviting applications is published. According to Rule 6, twenty five percent of the posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment from amongst the eligible Advocates on the basis of selection test comprising the Written Examination and Viva-voce Test. Rule 10 of the Rules reads thus: "10. Proficiency of English and Hindi- A Candidate for recruitment to the service must possess a thorough knowledge of Hindi (in Devanagri Script) and English." According to Rule 15, applications for direct 'recruitment' to the service shall be invited by the High Court through advertisement in at least two leading news papers having 'wide circulation in the State. The syllabus for competitive examination shall be as prescribed in Appendix "6" to the Rules. According to Rule 1/ (i), the examination shall be conducted by the High Court through the Chief Justice or a Committee constituted by the Chief Justice for the purpose. 5. Thus, under the Rules, direct recruitment from amongst eligible Advocates shall be on the basis of selection test comprising Written Examination and Viva-voce Test. The Written Examination shall be conducted by the High Court. Significantly, the Rules do not provide whether the written examination should be held in English or Hindi and whether the candidates must be allowed the option to write answers in Hindi or English. Since Rule 17 (i) authorises the High Court to conduct the examination, it is obvious that the High Court has been conferred the power to decide the language of the written examination and the language in which answers must be written. In exercise of the said power the High Court of Uttaranchal has decided to hold the written test in English and to insist that the answers must be written only in English. In exercise of the said power the High Court of Uttaranchal has decided to hold the written test in English and to insist that the answers must be written only in English. In the Notification issued by the High Court inviting applications from practising Advocates, it was stated that the recruitment is in accordance with the provisions of the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2004. In clause 6 of the Notification it was specifically stated that "the applicant for recruitment to the service must possess thorough knowledge of Hindi (in Devanagri script) and English." It cannot, therefore, be said that the instruction in the admit card that answers must be written in English only is illegal or unauthorised or arbitrary or unjust as contended by the petitioners. 6. It is true that in the Notification inviting applications it was not stated that the written examination will be held in English or that answers must be written in English only. At the same time it was also not stated in the notification that the examination will be held in Hindi or that the candidates will be given the option to write the answers in Hindi also. Under Rule 10 of the Rules, a candidate for recruitment to the service must possess a thorough knowledge of English. In the Notification inviting applications also it was stipulated that the applicant for recruitment to the service must possess thorough knowledge of English. An applicant who claims to be proficient in English and claims to possess thorough Knowledge of English, should be able to write the answers in English. In view of the provisions in the Rules and the Notification inviting applications, the applicants should nave and could have expected that they would be asked to write the answers in English. Though the instruction that answers must be written in English only was given to the applicants only through the admit cards and though it might have been better if the said instruction was contained in the Notification inviting applications, it cannot be said that the impugned instruction is illegal or unauthorised. As the admit cards were issued one month before the date of test, it cannot be said that the applicants did not have sufficient notice about the requirement that answers must be written in English. As the admit cards were issued one month before the date of test, it cannot be said that the applicants did not have sufficient notice about the requirement that answers must be written in English. Even assuming that there Will be some hardship to the candidates on account of the delay in giving the impugned instruction, it is applicable to all the candidates and, therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned instruction is arbitrary or unjust. 7. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that in the past when written tests were conducted for selection and appointment to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service, applicants were given option to write either in Hindi or in English and, therefore, the petitioners should be given option to write the answers either, in English or in Hindi. Even if there was such a practice in the matter of selection and appointment to the U.P_ Higher Judicial Service, it is not binding on the High Court of Uttaranchal in the matter of selection and appointment to the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service. Appointments by direct recruitment to the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges in the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service are being made for the first time. As far as the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service is concerned, there is no precedent or practice of giving option to the candidates to write answers either in Hindi or in English. The Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service Rules have authorised the High Court of Uttaranchal to conduct the examination. The Rules have prescribed only the syllabus for the examination. All other decisions relating to the conduct of the examination are left to the High Court. The High Court in Its wisdom has consciously decided- that the written examination must be held in English and that the candidates must write the answers only in English. It should be presumed that the High Court had valid and sufficient reasons to decide that the candidates should write answers only in English and that they need not be given any option to write the answers in Hindi. 8. It should be presumed that the High Court had valid and sufficient reasons to decide that the candidates should write answers only in English and that they need not be given any option to write the answers in Hindi. 8. There is also no merit in the contention of the petitioners that proficiency of the candidates in English can be assessed by the answers to the questions In Part-II of Paper 1 and that it is not necessary to insist that answers to all questions in all the three Papers must be written in English. Rule 10 of the Rules requires that a candidate for recruitment to the service must possess in thorough knowledge of Hindi (in Devanagri script) and English. The Notification inviting applications also stipulates that the applicants must possess thorough knowledge of Hindi (in Devanagri script) and English. If the High Court is of the opinion that the thorough knowledge of the applicant in English can be assessed only by insisting that answers must be written only in English, it cannot be said to be wrong or arbitrary. Almost all the applicants, including the petitioners, are from Hindi speaking areas and hence they can be normally expected to possess thorough knowledge of Hindi and consequently for assessing their thorough knowledge in Hindi, it is not necessary to insist that they should write answers in Hindi. On the contrary, their knowledge of English can be properly assessed only by insisting that answers must be written in English. 9. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that since the official language of the subordinate courts is Hindi, there is no justification for insisting that answers must be written only in English is devoid of merit. The question is not what should be the official language of the courts of Additional District and Sessions Judges. The question is whether in the written examination for selection and appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, the applicants can be asked to write answers only in English. The answer to the said question will depend on the nature of the duties and functions to be performed by the members of the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service and the qualities and abilities required for the efficient and satisfactory discharge of those functions and duties. The answer to the said question will depend on the nature of the duties and functions to be performed by the members of the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service and the qualities and abilities required for the efficient and satisfactory discharge of those functions and duties. In discharging their judicial functions the members of the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service will have to read and understand the judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts and apply the legal principles contained in those judgments to the facts of the cases coming before them. The judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts are admittedly written in English. Unless the Judicial Officer has adequate knowledge of English and sufficient functional proficiency In that knowledge, he will not be able to properly understand those judgments and to correctly apply them while deciding the cases coming before him. Similarly the language of correspondence between the-High Court of Uttaranchal and the Subordinate courts is generally English. A member of the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service must have adequate knowledge and sufficient functional proficiency in English, to understand and implement the orders and circulars and directions issued by the High Court. If the High Court decided that in order to assess whether the candidate has got the required knowledge and functional proficiency in English, it is necessary to insist that he must write answers only in English, the said decision of the High Court cannot be said to be wrong or arbitrary. 10. There is also no merit in the contention that since the policy of the State is to promote Hindi, there is no justification for denying the petitioners the right to write answers in Hindi. The policy of promoting Hindi language has no relevance in deciding the issue arising in these cases. The question is whether a member of Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service should have adequate knowledge and sufficient functional proficiency in English, for the proper discharge of his duties and functions and whether an applicant for recruitment to the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service can be asked to write answers in English in order to assess such knowledge and functional proficiency in English. In our view, in the name of the policy of promoting Hindi, persons without adequate knowledge and sufficient functional proficiency in English cannot be selected and appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judges. In our view, in the name of the policy of promoting Hindi, persons without adequate knowledge and sufficient functional proficiency in English cannot be selected and appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judges. A person who cannot even write answers in English in the written examination, cannot be expected to have adequate knowledge and sufficient functional proficiency in English to properly discharge the duties and functions of an Additional District and Sessions Judge. The quality and efficiency of the Judicial Officers cannot be sacrificed merely for the sake of promoting Hindi language. There are other ways and methods of promoting the Hindi language. 11. Unless the petitioners establish that they have an enforceable legal right to write the answers in Hindi or that the instruction to write the answers only in English is contrary to or violative of any statutory provisions or that the decision to insist that answers must be written only in English is arbitrary, they cannot succeed in these writ petitions. In our view, the petitioners could not establish any enforceable legal right to write the answers in Hindi. The petitioners could not point out any statutory provision which has been violated by the impugned instruction that answers must be written only in English. The petitioners have also failed to show that the impugned instruction is arbitrary. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petitions and they are liable to be dismissed. 12. In support of the claim of the petitioners learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the provisions contained in Section 137 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by Uttar Pradesh) which reads as follows:- "137. Language of subordinate Courts.- (1) The language which, on the commencement of the Code, is the language of any Court subordinate to a High Court shall continue to be the' language of such subordinate Court until the State Government otherwise directs. (2) The State 'Government may declare what shall be the language of any such Court and in what character applications to and proceedings in such Courts shall be written. (2) The State 'Government may declare what shall be the language of any such Court and in what character applications to and proceedings in such Courts shall be written. (3) Where this Court requires or allows anything other than the recording of evidence to be done in writing in any such Court, such writing may be in English; but if any party or his pleader is unacquainted with English a translation into the language of the Court shall, at his request, be supplied to him and the court shall order as it thinks fit in respect of the payment of the costs of such translation. Provided that with effect from such date as the State Government in consultation with the High Court may by notification in the Gazette appoint, the language of every judgment, decree or order passed or made by such courts or classes of Court subordinate to the High Court and such classes of cases as may be specified, shall only be Hindi in Devanagri script with the international form of Indian numerals." In our view the above provisions contained in Section 137 of the C.P.C. cannot support the claim of the petitioners. First of all, Section 137 of the C.P.C. deals with language of subordinate courts and it has no application to the language in which the written test for selection and appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service should be conducted. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any notification issued by the State Government under the Proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 137. The learned counsel could not also produce any declaration made by the State Government under sub-section (2) of Section 137. Sub-section (3) of Section 137 shows that anything, other than the recording of evidence required or allowed to be done in writing in any court, may be done in English. There is nothing to indicate that Hindi has been made the exclusive language of Subordinate courts. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners also invited our attention to Section 354 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides that except as otherwise specifically provided by the Code, every judgment in every trial in any criminal court of Original jurisdiction, shall be written in the language of the court. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners also invited our attention to Section 354 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides that except as otherwise specifically provided by the Code, every judgment in every trial in any criminal court of Original jurisdiction, shall be written in the language of the court. The above provision also relates to the language in which the judgment has to be written and it has no application to the language in which the written examination for appointment to the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge should be conducted. 14. It was then pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that according to Rule 15 of the General Rules (Civil), 1957 Hindi written in Devanagri script shall be language in Civil Courts in Uttaranchal; provided the continued use of any other language or script already in use under the existing law and rules shall be permissible in accordance with the executive instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. It was contended that the General Rules, 1957 are applicable in the State of Uttaranchal also and, therefore, Hindi written in Devanagri script is the language of the Civil Courts in Uttaranchal also. Even assuming that by virtue of Rule 15 of the General Rules, 1957, as applicable to the State of Uttaranchal, Hindi written in Devanagri script is the language of Civil Courts in Uttaranchal, it does not prevent the High Court from insisting that the language of the written examination for selection and appointment to to the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge shall be English and answers must be written by the candidates in English only. It has also to be mentioned that in the State of Uttaranchal the Judicial Officers of the Subordinate courts are not bound to write judgments in Hindi. On the other hand as per the circulars issued by the High Court of Uttaranchal, the Judicial Officers have the freedom to write judgments and orders in English. 15. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merits in the writ petitions and the writ petitions are dismissed.