JUDGMENT 1. - By this intra-Court appeal, the appellant/petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the validity of Rule 284(ii) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (for short, `Rules of 1957'). 2. The appellant "Sangh" laid a writ petition before the learned Single judge questioning the vires of Rule 284(ii) of the Rules of 1957 by alleging that the same is against the mandate of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which is precisely the source of these rules. That apart, the appellant has also assailed the rules prescribing promotion quota to the extent of 80% for Patwaris of the Revenue and Land Records Departments to the post of Inspector Land Records, Office Oanungos and Assistant Sadar Qanungos based on the criteria of seniority cum merit, and 20% quota by way of competitive examination of Patwaris of Land Revenue (Land Records) Department from amongst serving Patwaris. 3. The learned Single judge, on examining the language employed under Proviso to Rule 284(ii) of the Rules of 1957, has held that the same cannot be held to be detrimental even to the candidates seeking to fill the vacancies^ by departmental competitive examination. While recording its affirmative finding about the validity of the Rule, the learned Single Judge has also relied on the additional affidavit submitted on behalf of the respondents, wherein entire fact situation was explained and clarified. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Upon perusal of Rule 284(ii) of the Rules of 1957, we fully concur with the findings and conclusions of the learned Single Judge that the impugned rule is not at all violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, there is no substance in the argument of the appellant that the said rule is against the mandate of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is trite that a delegated legislation can be declared invalid by the Court mainly on two grounds\ firstly that it violates any provision of Constitution and secondly, it is violative of the enabling Act. 6. It is trite that a delegated legislation can be declared invalid by the Court mainly on two grounds\ firstly that it violates any provision of Constitution and secondly, it is violative of the enabling Act. There is a presumption in favour of Constitutionality or validity of the subordinate legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. 7. Applying the parameters aforesaid and on examining the impugned Rule 284(ii) of the Rules of 1957, we are convinced that neither the rule is violative of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, nor it invades any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. The other available ground of challenge, i.e. lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate legislation is also conspicuously missing in the instant case. 8. On an objective analysis of the impugned rule, we are convinced that there is no manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the impugned rule. Thus, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge and are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order in this intra-Court appeal. 9. Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. *******