JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the appointment/promotion of respondent no.2 on the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter. Case of the petitioner in short is as under : Petitioner came to be appointed as a Clerk on 07.09.1973. Thereafter he was selected as a Junior Translator and Interpreter on 16.12.1980. On 01.01.1986, petitioner came to be promoted as Senior Translator and Interpreter. On 01.01.1994, he was promoted as Deputy Chief Translator and Interpreter and continued on the said post till his superannuation. 2. It is submitted that one Shri Kulkarni, came to be retired on 31.08.2003. Petitioner was called to appear for interview to the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter, on 16.01.2004 and he was interviewed on the same day. Again on 17.01.2004, his vivavoce examination was conducted however, respondent no.1 has not communicated result to him. During that time, respondent no.2 and others made a representation to respondent no.1 on 22.01.2004. They were called for interview and respondent no.2 came to be selected. 3. Main contention of the petitioner is, that as per Rule 10 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2000 Rules” for short), he was the only candidate qualified for the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter. There was no other candidate in the fray to be appointed/promoted on the said post. Though respondent no.2 was not qualified for the said post of Chief Translator and Interpreter, he was called along with Mrs. Andhare and others for the purpose of interview on 19.04.2004 and 21.04.2004. The main contention or grievance of petitioner is that respondent no.2 was not working as a Deputy Chief Translator and Interpreter or Assistant Translators on the date of interview, and inspite of this position, he was interviewed along with others. He got less marks as compared to Mrs. Andhare, then also he was promoted on the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter. 4. In short, it is submitted that respondent no.1 has shown some favoritism to respondent no.2 and illegally promoted him on the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter. 5. He got less marks as compared to Mrs. Andhare, then also he was promoted on the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter. 4. In short, it is submitted that respondent no.1 has shown some favoritism to respondent no.2 and illegally promoted him on the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter. 5. It is the grievance of petitioner that Rule 58 of the 2000 Rules is wrongly taken out for helping respondent no.2 and by making relaxation about his qualification, as per Rule 58 [b], respondent no.2 was allowed to appear for interview and wrongly selected. 6. It is thus the contention of petitioner that Rule 58 of the 2000 Rules, is arbitrary and therefore, is liable to be struck down. 7. In this background, we have heard Shri V.G. Bhamburkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anand Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Radhika Bajaj, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri N.C. Phadnis, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. Shri Bhambhurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out Rule 10 and submitted that as per this Rule, only Deputy Chief Translator and Assistant Translators are qualified for the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter. Respondent no.2 was not working as Deputy Chief Translator or Assistant Translator. He was working as a Senior Translator. He was working under petitioner for a long period and thus was also junior to petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner, that other employees of High Court were given much more chances to appear for the interview, but, he was not given any other chance for the said post. Therefore, it is submitted that respondent no.2 was given much favour and wrongly appointed/promoted on the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner has further submitted that Rule 58 of the 2000 Rules, is arbitrary. He has submitted that the words that the Hon'ble Chief Justice can 'appoint any person', gives much more discretion to respondent no.1 and therefore, liable to be struck down. He has also pointed out sub-rule [b] of the said Rule and submitted that to show favoritism, relaxation can be given to any particular candidate, and this is nothing but, an arbitrary rule in the hands of respondent no.1, therefore, prayed to quash the same. 9. He has also pointed out sub-rule [b] of the said Rule and submitted that to show favoritism, relaxation can be given to any particular candidate, and this is nothing but, an arbitrary rule in the hands of respondent no.1, therefore, prayed to quash the same. 9. Shri A.S. Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 has submitted that the petitioner was called for interview on 16.01.2004 and 17.01.2014, for the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter, but, he was not found suitable and therefore, he was not selected/appointed or promoted to the said post. On 22.01.2004, respondent no.2 along with other translators have made a representation to respondent no.1. They were called for interviews on 19.04.2004 and 21.04.2004. Respondent no.2 was found suitable for the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter, and therefore, he came to be selected. It is submitted that as per Rule 58 [b], respondent no.1 has every right to relax conditions in respect of the qualifications. He has submitted that Rule 58 is an important Rule in the hands of respondent no.1. 10. In case of any exigency, Rule 58 is the only rule for the smooth working/running of the administration of High Court. Learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that Rule 58 is not arbitrary, and therefore, there is no need to struck down the same. 11. From the submissions of petitioner, it is revealed that his contentions are based on following material grounds : (1) He was the only candidate to be appointed/promoted to the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter (as per Rule 10 of the 2000 Rules). (2) Respondent no.2 was not qualified for the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter. (3) Smt. Andhare, got 47 marks, whereas respondent no.2 got 43 marks in the interview, still he was promoted. (4) Petitioner was not given more chance to appear in the interview. Other employees were given more chances. 12. As per the contention of the petitioner, he was the only candidate to be considered for being appointed on the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter, as per Rule 10. Rule 10 reads as under : “10. Chief Translator and Interpreter. (4) Petitioner was not given more chance to appear in the interview. Other employees were given more chances. 12. As per the contention of the petitioner, he was the only candidate to be considered for being appointed on the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter, as per Rule 10. Rule 10 reads as under : “10. Chief Translator and Interpreter. Appointment shall be by selection from amongst the Deputy Chief Translator and Interpreter and Assistant Translator and Interpreter who have served in any of the above capacities for not less than two years; Provided that the incumbent possesses a University Degree, Preference being given to holders of Degree in Law.” There is no dispute that he was the only Deputy Chief Translator and Interpreter working on the establishment of the High Court, Bench at Nagpur. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that other Deputy Chief Translators from other Benches were not called for interview. It is pertinent to note that learned counsel for petitioner has not pointed out that there were other Deputy Chief Translators and Interpreters working at any other Benches on the establishment of Bombay High Court. As per Schedule-II forming part of the 2000 Rules, which deals with strength of the staff on the Appellate Side Establishment including its Benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Panaji, Goa of the Bombay High Court, shows that there is only one post of Deputy Chief Translator and Interpreter at the establishment of High Court Bench at Nagpur, and there is no such post at other Benches either at Aurangabad or Panaji Goa, or at the Principal Seat. No post of Assistant Translator is in existence as per Schedule-II. As per Rule 10 of the above said Rules, there is no dispute that only Deputy Chief Translator and Interpreter and Assistant Translators are eligible for the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter. 14. As there was no other candidate/Deputy Chief Translator and Interpreter or Assistant Translators, at any other benches, therefore, there was no question of calling the Deputy Chief Translator or Assistant Translator from any other Benches. Respondent no.1, after the interview of petitioner found that he was not suitable for the post. Representation of respondent nos. 2 and others was received and by making relaxation about the qualification, as per Rule 58[b], respondent no.1 called respondent no.2 and others for interview. They were interviewed on 19.04.2004 and 21.04.2004. Respondent no.1, after the interview of petitioner found that he was not suitable for the post. Representation of respondent nos. 2 and others was received and by making relaxation about the qualification, as per Rule 58[b], respondent no.1 called respondent no.2 and others for interview. They were interviewed on 19.04.2004 and 21.04.2004. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that Smt. Andhare, got 47 marks and respondent no.2 got 43 marks. As per his submission and pleadings in the petition, the marks out of 60, were in respect of written test and oral interview. Other marks out of 40 are not pointed out. Respondent no.1 found respondent no.2 suitable for the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter. He is having Degree of Law. He came to be appointed on the said post. He was not called again for the interview because no such post was vacant till his retirement, therefore, no question of giving him any more chance. 16. The main arguments advanced from the side of the petitioner, that he was the only candidate qualified as per Rule 10, has no force in view of provisions in Rule 58 [b] of the 2000 Rules. The said Rule 58 reads as under : “58. Overriding power of the Hon'ble Chief Justice – Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Hon'ble Chief Justice shall have power to,- (a) appoint any person at any time otherwise than in accordance with these rules in a temporary or permanent vacancy and the appointment so made shall be as effective as valid as any other appointment made in accordance with these rules. (b) relax qualification all or any of the rules in making appointments and the appointments so made shall be as effective and valid as any other appointment made in accordance with these rules.” 17. As per Rule 58[b], the Hon'ble Chief Justice can make relaxation in respect of any qualification for any post. Sub-rule [a] speaks of the Hon'ble Chief Justice can appoint any person to any post. Rule 58 is the only rule for smooth running of administration of High Court in case of exigencies. Therefore, it cannot be deleted. In the present case also, respondent no.1 found that the petitioner was not suitable for the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter. Sub-rule [a] speaks of the Hon'ble Chief Justice can appoint any person to any post. Rule 58 is the only rule for smooth running of administration of High Court in case of exigencies. Therefore, it cannot be deleted. In the present case also, respondent no.1 found that the petitioner was not suitable for the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter. Therefore by taking aid of Rule 58[b], relaxation was given and other Translators including respondent no.2 were called for interview. This is not illegal in view of Rule 58[b] of the 2000 Rules. The Administrator has to choose the best person to run the administration effectively. Respondent no.1 has found more merits in respondent no.2 and therefore, he came to be selected to the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter. There is nothing illegal in the action of respondent no.1. We do not find any merit in the Petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. No cost.