KULDIP SINGH - (1.) EVEN the General Law later in time, prevails over the earlier Special Law if it clearly and directly supersedes the said Special Law - is an unexceptionable proposition of law. K, Jayachandra Reddy, J. has interpreted Rule 3(2) of General Rules consistently with Rules 1(3)(a), 3(1) and 4(2) of the same Rules. Giving harmonious construction to various provisions of the General Rules the learned Judge has held that the General Rules do not supersede the Special Rules. Yogeshwar Dayal, J. on the other hand has focussed his attention on the language of Rule 3 (2) of the General Rules and has concluded that there is clear indication in the said Rule to supersede the Special Rules.
(2.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the reasoning adopted by the learned Judges in their respective judgments. Rule, 1(3)(a) of the General Rules, which lays down the extent and applicability of the General Rules, specifically provides that the General Rules shall not be applicable to the State Civil Services for which there are express provisions under any law for the time being in force. When the General Rules were enforced the Special Rules were already holding the field. The Special Rules being "law" the application of the General Rules is excluded to the extent the field is occupied by the Special Rules. I do not agree that the non obstante clause in Rule 3(2) of the General Rules has an overriding effect on Rule 1(3)(a) of the said Rules. With utmost respect to the erudite judgment prepared by'Yogeshwar Dayal, J. 1 prefer the reasoning and the conclusions reached by K. Jayachanra Reddy, J. and agree with the, judgment proposed by him. This appeal is directed against the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore dismissing an application filed by the apellant. The principal question involved is whether sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Itules, 1977 ('General Rules' for short) has the overriding effect over the Karnataka General Service (Motor Vehicles Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1976 ('Special Rules'for short). For a better appreciation of the question it becomes necessary to state few facts. The appellant was appointed initially as Inspector of Motor Vehicle and was promoted as Assistant Regional Transport Officer in the year 1976 in which year the Special Rules were framed. In the year 1981 the appellant was promoted as Regional Transport Officer. Some of the General Rules of 1977 were amended in the year 1982 and sub-rule (2) of R. 3 was inserted in the said Rules. In the year 1989 the second respondent was promoted as Deputy Commissioner of Transport on seniority-cum-merit basis alone as purported to have been provided in new R. 3(2) of General Rules. Being aggrieved by the same the appellant filed an Application No. 3155/89 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal questioning the promotion of second respondent on the ground that the promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Transport should be by selection from the cadre of Regional Transport Officers and not merely on seniority-cum-merit basis. His application was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that Rule 3(2) of General Rules which was introduced later overrides the earlier Special Rules. It is this order which is, questioned in this appeal.
(3.) SHRI P. P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Special Rules are exclusively meant to govern the recruitment and promotion of officers of various cadres of the Motor Vehicle Department and the General Rules which generally regulate the recruitment of all State Civil Services broadly even though later in point of time cannot abrogate the Special Rules and that they are not meant to be so since the Special Rules also are very much in force inasmuch as they are not superseded. SHRI P. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the State of Karnataka contended that the non obstante clause in Rule 3(2) of the General, Rules which was introduced later clearly indicate the intention of the Legislature to supersede the Special Rules and promotions from the cadre of Regional Transport Officer to that of Deputy Commissioner of Transport could only be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and not by selection. From the rival contentions it emerges that the real question involved is one of construction of non obstante clause in Rule 3(2) and its effect on the Special Rules providing for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Transport by selection from the cadre of Regional Transport Officers. We shall now refer to the relevant Special and General Rules. The Special Rules were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India in the year 1976. The Special Rules of recruitment for the category of post of Deputy Commissioner of Transport reads thus: JUDGEMENT_335_1_1992Html1.htm It can be seen that this part of Special Rules clearly provides for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Transport by selection from the cadre of Regional Transport Officers who have put in not less than five years of service. The General Rules were framed in the year 1977 and Rule 3 reads as under: "Method of recruitment - (1) Except as otherwise provided in these rules or any other rules specially made in this behalf, recruitmerit to any service or post shall be made by direct recruitment which may be either by competitive examination or by selection, or by promotion which may be either by selection or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The methods of recruitment and qualifications shall be as specified in the rules of recruitment specially made in that behalf; Provided that in respect of direct recruitmerit to any service or post when the method of recruitment is not specified in the rules of recruitment specially made, the method of recruitment be by selection after an interview by the Commission, the Advisory of Selection Committee or the Appointing Authority as the case may be. Provided further that no person shall be eligible for promotion unless he has satisfactorily completed the period of probation or officiation, as the case may be, in the post held by him. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post - (a) the promotion to the post of Head of Department or the post of an Additional head of Department, if it is in a grade equivalent to that of the Head of Department concerned, shall be by selection; Provided that for the purpose of promotion by selection the number of persons to be considered shall be such number of persons eligible for promotion in the order of seniority, as is equal to five times the number of vacancies to be filled. (b) the Promotion to all other posts shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit" It may be noted that Rule 3(2) with which we are mainly concerned was inserted in the year 1982. Shri Chidambaram strongly relying on the non obstante clause in Rule 3(2) with which this sub-rule begins, contended that this general rule clearly supersedes the special law and, therefore, according to him, the Tribunal was right in holding that the promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Transport could be only on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. It is true that a simple reading of Rule 3(2) appears to lay down that notwithstanding anything contained in the General Rules or in the Special Rules, the promotion to the post of a Head or Additional Head of a Department only shall be by selection and that the promotion to all other posts shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. This clause (b) of sub-rule (2) is in general terms and as already noted the General Rules indicate that they regulate general recruitment to all the Karnataka State Civil Services broadly. It is not in dispute that just like the Special Rules providing for recruitment of the Transport Department there are such special rules in respect of many other departments also. It is therefore clear that while General Rules broadly indicate that they regulate general recruitment including promotion to all the State Civil Services but at the same time each Department has its own Special Rules of recruitment and they a.re coexisting. Such Special Rules of recruitment for the Motor Vehicles Department are not repealed by any provision of the General Rules which are later in point of time. As a matter of fact Rule 21 which provides for repeal does not in any manner indicate that any of the Special Rules stood repealed. It is in this background that we have to consider the interpretation of non obstante clause in Rule3(2) of the General Rules. ;