T HAS long been established by decisions of the California Supreme Court that the writ of certiorari lies in proper cases to review determinations made by local administrative boards and officers. This contrasts with the recent holding that the same writ cannot be used to obtain judicial review of the determinations of state-wide administrative agencies.' Dicta in recent opinions indicate that the court does not intend its new rule with respect to state-wide agencies to affect its old rule as to local agencies,' but the opinions offer little or nothing to rationalize the distinction. They merely make two contrasting assertions: (1) Boards and officers having state-wide jurisdiction cannot, without explicit constitutional sanction, be given judicial functions; therefore their proceedings cannot be reviewed on certiorari. (2) Local boards and officers can be vested with judicial power and the writ of certiorari is available to review and, if need be, to annul their judicial acts. Why this differentiation between the local and the state-wide board? Certain cases are referred to by the court as "not in point" as to state-wide agencies because such cases "involved the scope or validity of judicial powers exercised by local tribunals, boards, or officers whose jurisdiction was limited to incorporated cities, towns, townships, counties, or cities and counties ... .."3 Is the judicial power something to be parcelled out by the legislature in geographical segments? Must a judicial function, if it is to be exercised by an administrative officer, be fenced in by a city or a county boundary line? Occasional references by the court to article VI, section 1, of the state constitution4 are not particularly helpful in supplying the an-