JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph, C.J. 1. The petitioner is a practising Advocate. According to the petitioner, he belongs to Lingayath community which is a Backward Community eligible for reservation under category III(B) as per Government Order No. SWD 126 BCA 2002 dated 13.2.2003. He also claims that he is entitled to the benefit of reservation available to Rural Candidates as he had completed his education up to S.S.L.C. in a rural area. He further claims that he is also entitled to claim the benefit of reservation available to candidates who have completed their education in Kannada medium. 2. The respondent- Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka issued Annexure-F Notification dated 1st April 2006 inviting applications for direct recruitment to 232 posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division). According to Annexure- F Notification, the applicant must be holder of a Degree in Law granted by a University established by law in India and must have been enrolled as an Advocate. As on the last date fixed for receipt of applications i.e. 15.5.2006, the applicant must not have completed the age of 38 years in the case of candidates belonging to Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe and 35 years in the case of others. The selection of candidates will be on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in a Competitive Examination consisting of Written Test and Viva-Voce conducted by the High Court. Only candidates who have secured specified minimum marks in the Written Test will be eligible for Viva-Voce. 3. As on 15.5.2006 i.e. the last date for receipt of applications, the petitioner had completed 35 years of age. According to the petitioner, he was aged 36 years 6 months and 10 days. Hence as per Annexure-F Notification, the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Contending that the maximum age prescribed in Annexure-F Notification was in violation of Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6607/2006 challenging the Notification. On the basis of an interim order passed in the Writ Petition, the petitioner, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the Written Test on a provisional basis and subject to further orders in the writ Petition. Since the petitioner did not obtain the minimum marks in Translation Paper in the Written Test, he was not eligible for Viva-Voce. On the basis of an interim order passed in the Writ Petition, the petitioner, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the Written Test on a provisional basis and subject to further orders in the writ Petition. Since the petitioner did not obtain the minimum marks in Translation Paper in the Written Test, he was not eligible for Viva-Voce. When the Government Advocate submitted in Court that the petitioner did not pass in the written test and qualify Viva-Voce, Writ Petition No. 660712006 was dismissed. 4. As in the case of all the candidates who failed in the Written Test, the Mark’s Card was sent to the petitioner by the respondent. Annexure-H is the copy of the Marks Card. Annexure- H shows that as against the required minimum of 40 marks, the petitioner got only 31 marks in Translation Paper. On receipt of Annexure-H Marks Card, the petitioner submitted Annexure- K representation dated 19-2-2008 requesting the respondent to arrange for revaluation of the Translation Paper. He also submitted Annexure-L representation dated 19.2.2008 requesting the respondent to permit him to inspect his Translation Paper and also to furnish a copy of the Translation Paper under the Right to Information Act. When the respondent told the petitioner that there was no provision in the Rules for revaluation and that his request for revaluation and a copy of the answer paper could not be granted, he filed this writ petition praying for the following reliefs: “(1) It may be declared that the procedure adopted by the respondent for evaluation of the answer scripts of the Competitive Written Examination for the recruitment of Civil Judges (Junior Division), without moderation and without applying the scaling method with a view to eliminate the inconsistency in the marking standards of the examiners, is wholly illegal and not sustainable. 2) It may be further declared that the’ evaluation of the answer sheet of the Translation Paper of the petitioner in the Competitive Written Examination, 2007 held for the recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) has not been properly and correctly done and consequently the failure marks awarded and remarks made therein that the petitioner is not eligible for viva voce as per the Marks Card issued by the respondent which has been produced at Annexure H, may kindly be set aside. The petitioner also prays that he may be declared as the successful candidate in the said written examination and being eligible for viva voce. 3) Any other writ or direction in the nature of writ which this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner along with cost of this petition in the ends of justice and equity.” 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having considered the averments in the writ petition and the materials placed on record, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. 6. There is no legal basis for the prayer in the writ petition for a declaration that the procedure adopted by the respondent for evaluation of the answer scripts without moderation and without applying the scaling method is wholly illegal and not sustainable. As stated in Annexure-F Notification, the recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) is being made in the accordance with the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004. The said Rules do not provide for any moderation or scaling method for evaluation of the answer scripts in the written examination. In the absence of such a provision, the petitioner cannot insist on moderation or scaling method for evaluation of the answer scripts. Merely because there is no moderation and scaling method, the procedure adopted by the respondent for evaluation of the answer scripts does not become illegal or unsustainable. According to Article-233 of the Constitution of India, appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, District Judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. According to Article- 234 of the Constitution of India, appointments of persons other than District Judges to the Judicial service of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State in accordance with Rules made by the him in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. In exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India. In exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India. The Governor of Karnataka made the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 regarding the recruitment to the posts of District Judges, Civil Judges (Senior Division) and Civil Judges (Junior Division). The recruitment of Civil Judges (Junior Division) pursuant to Annexure-F Notification is being made in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004. HELD, It is for the Rule-making Authority to decide the method of recruitment, the process of selection, nature and content of the test and the procedure for evaluation of answer scripts. If the Rule making Authority did not consider it necessary to apply moderation and scaling method for evaluation of the answer scripts, the wisdom of the Rule making Authority in deciding not to apply moderation and scaling method cannot be questioned by the Court. The Court cannot substitute its view for the considered view of the Rule making Authority. The same is the position in respect of the revaluation of the answer scripts. Unless the Recruitment Rules provide for revaluation of the answer scripts, the candidate has no enforceable legal right to demand revaluation of his answer scripts or the right to inspect the answer scripts or to obtain copy of the answer scripts. 7. In taking the above view, we are supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and Others and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another vs Parithosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc. 8. In the first case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. The Hon’ble Supreme Court disapproved the action of the Learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in issuing a direction to the Patna University to have the answer -book of the candidate re-evaluated by expert teachers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court disapproved the action of the Learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in issuing a direction to the Patna University to have the answer -book of the candidate re-evaluated by expert teachers. Pointing out that such a course will give rise to practical problems and that many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer -books, the Supreme Court has held that in the absence of clear rules providing for re-evaluation, such directions must be avoided in the larger interest. 9. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, etc. the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the contention that denial of the right of inspection of the answer-books as well as denial of the right to ask for a revaluation amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. It was held that the principles of natural justice could not be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and could not be carried to such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who took a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books and determining whether there was a proper and fair evaluation of the answers by the examiners. Disapproving the view taken by the High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph-14 of the judgment that it would be wholly wrong for the Court to substitute its own opinion for that of the legislature or its delegate as to what principles or policy would best serve the objects and purposes of the Act and to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation-making body and declare a regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object and purpose of the Act. According to the Supreme Court, so long as the body entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational nexus with the object and purpose of the Statute, the Court should not concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of such rules or regulations. It has been further held that it is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegates to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to he incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act and that it is not for the Court to examine the merits Or demerits of such a policy because its scrutiny has to be limited to the question as to whether the impugned regulations fall within the scope of the regulations- making power conferred on the delegate by the Statute. The Supreme Court has observed that the conduct of the examination and the evaluation of the candidates’ performance and the compiling and release of results are all to be carried out by the Division Board in accordance with the instructions to be issued by the State Board from time to time. According to the Supreme Court, it was perfectly within the competence of the Board to apply its mind and decide as a matter of policy relating to the conduct of the examination as to whether disclosure and inspection of the answer books should be allowed to the candidates, whether and to what extent verification of the result should be permitted after the results .have already been announced and whether any right to claim revaluation of the answer books should be recognised or provided’ for. Disapproving the opinion of the High Court that in deciding the question as to whether the impugned clause was ultra vires, the Court had to bear in mind the glaring deficiencies found to exist in the working of the system, the Supreme Court has held in paragraph-16 as follows: “In our opinion, the aforesaid approach made by the High Court is wholly incorrect and fallacious. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purpose of the Act. The legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” In paragraph-18 of the Judgment, the Supreme Court has further held as follows: “In the light of what we have stated above, the constitutionality of the impugned regulations has to be adjudged only by a three-fold test, namely, (1) whether the provisions of such regulations fall within the scope and ambit of the power conferred by the statute on the delegate; (2) whether the rules/regulations framed by the delegates are to any extent inconsistent with the provisions of the parent enactment and lastly (3) whether they infringe any of the fundamental rights or other restrictions or limitations imposed by the Constitution.” 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in V.P. Public Services Commission vs: Subhash Chandra Dixit and Other to support his contention that the system of scaling down of marks should have been adopted ... for evaluation of the answer scripts. It was a case where the U.P. Public Service Commission invoked the scaling system for valuation of the answer scripts. for evaluation of the answer scripts. It was a case where the U.P. Public Service Commission invoked the scaling system for valuation of the answer scripts. The scaling system was adopted on the strength of Rule-51 of the relevant Rules which provided that the Public Service Commission may, with a view to eliminating variation in the marks awarded to candidates at any examination or interview, adopt a method, device or formula which they consider proper for the purpose. Some of the failed candidates challenged the selection of candidates on the ground that the application of scaling system for valuation of answer papers was unauthorised and illegal. The Supreme Court held that the adoption of the system of scaling down of marks was neither arbitrary nor contrary to U.P. Nyayik Sewa Niyamavali 1951. Nowhere in the Judgment the Supreme Court has held that the system of scaling down of marks is mandatory or that in the absence of a provision for scaling down of marks, the recruitment rules and the procedure for recruitment will be illegal or arbitrary. Hence the above mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court cannot support the contention of the petitioner. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6223-6312/2005 (M.R. Ravi and Others vs Karnataka Public Service Commission and Others) to support the contention that the petitioner is entitled to have his answer-script re-evaluated and that the non-application of scaling method vitiates the procedure for selection. Having perused the said judgment, we do not find that the Supreme Court has anywhere held that even in the absence of a provision in the rules for revaluation, the candidates has an enforceable legal right to get the answer script revalued or that in the absence of a provision for scaling method, the procedure for recruitment will be vitiated. 12. Even though the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the evaluation of the answer sheet of the Translation Paper of the petitioner has not been properly and correctly done, the said prayer is not supported by necessary pleadings or supporting materials. The petitioner has not explained the basis for the allegation that the answer script was not properly and correctly valued. The petitioner has not explained the basis for the allegation that the answer script was not properly and correctly valued. The only averment in the writ petition is that the petitioner is a victim of a examiner who has not discharged his duties properly and as such the respondent has committed a serious error in not providing for the moderation and also not providing for the scaling method in the matter of evaluation of the answer sheet. There is absolutely no material to indicate that the examiner had not discharged his duties properly or that the answer script was not valued correctly. 13. In spite of what has been held above, with a view to satisfy the conscience of the Court, we summoned the answer script of the petitioner in the Translation Paper, to verify whether it has been valued properly. On a verification of the answer script, it is found that all the answers written by the petitioner were considered by the Examiner and marks were awarded to each answer and that there was also no mistake in the totaling of the marks. On going through the answers given by the petitioner, it is not possible for us to say that the petitioner was not given the marks which he deserved. 14, In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed.