A question of far reaching importance is involved in these writ petitions as to whether the employees on the establishment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad can be debarred from writing their answers in Hindi in the departmental promotional examinations. It sound ridiculous that after lapse of half of the century of the commencement of the Constitution of India, the officials of the High Court, which is located in the Hindi speaking bell, are being compelled to write their answers in departmental ex amination in English only. For the better appreciation of the controversy in hand, the background in which the present writ petition have come up before this Court may be come up before this Court may be narrated. The employees who are recruited to the establishment of this Court are governed by the provisions of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (conditions of S0rvice and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ). The promotional avenues arc available to the Lower Division Assistants (for short "ldas") who are initially recruited as Routine Grade Clerks (for short "rgcs" ). There is a promotional post of Bench Secretary Grade II. All those LDAs who have put in ten years continuous service in class III cadre are eligible to appear in the departmental ex amination. By Office Memorandum dated 24-11-1998, applications were invited from the eligible candidates upto 10-12-1998 and the departmental examination was to take place oft 9-1-1999. There was not even a faint suggestion in the Office Memorandum that the candidates who are desirous to take up the proposed examina tion have to write their answers to the various questions only in English lan guage. The rules are also silent on the point. They were surprised to know by seeing the examination paper to which a note was appended that answers are re quired to be given in English language only. This compulsion to write in English had irked the various members of the es tablishment of this Court in general, and the petitioners, in particular. In the present writ petition, the condition thai the answers are to be Written in English language only has been challenged as ar bitrary, illegal and against the specific provisions of the Constitution and the laws

made thereunder. It is prayed that since the petitioners were deprived of their legitimate right to write answers in Hindi in an arbitrary manner, the entire examination, which had taken place on 94-1999, be quashed as it stood vitiated. According to the petitioners, examination may be directed to be held again and the respondents be commanded not to compel the petitioners to write answers in English language only. On behalf of the respon dents, it has been maintained that in view of the provisions of Article 348 of the Constitution of India, the language of the Court is English and since on the repre sentation of the Employees Association, the committee of two Honble Judges has taken the decision that in view of the duties which are to be performed by the Bench Secretaries knowledge of English language is necessary and, therefore, the condition that the examinees shall answer the question in English language only is not arbitrary, illegal or unwarranted.

2. Heard Sri D. S. Misra as well as Sri V. C. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners in the two writ petitions and Sri Sunil Ambwani, appearing on behalf of the High Court and other respondents, as well as learned Standing Counsel on be half of the Slate of U. P.

3. The core question which surfaces in the present two writ petitions for deter mination and consideration is whether the employees of this Court, who appeared for promotion to the post of Bench Secretary Grade II, could be compelled to answer their questions in English language only or they can elect to write the answers in Hindi as per their choice and convenience. The controversy, therefore, boils down to this whether Hindi can be totally excluded in answering the quest