1999(5) Supreme 479
Supreme Court of India
(From Kerala High Court)
Jagannadha Rao & M.B. Shah, JJ.
S. Prakash & Anr. etc. -Appellants
versus
K.M. Kurian & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3042-43 of 1999
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 8546-8547 of 1998)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 3044-3053 of 1999
(@ S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8617-8624/98, 9862/98, and 12846/98)
Decided on 13-5-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : P.P. Rao, John Mathew, P. Krishnamurthy, T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Advocates, Ramesh Babu M.R., G. Prakash, B.V. Deepak, L. Nageswara Rao, Roy Abraham, Ms. Baby Krishnan, Romy Chacko, Rajiv Mehta, M.T. George, C.S. Srinivasa Rao, K.M.K. Nair, Vipin Nair, P.B. Suresh, Advocates.
Held : We hold that the amendment brought to the general rules (Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules) by the Notification dated 5th December, 1992 or as pointed out when it was published in the gazette, i.e. 2nd February, 1993 is not repugnant to special rules and that there is no question of taking away the rights of the candidates who were selected by the Public Service Commission. (Para 19)
Judgment
Shah, J.-Leave granted.
These appeals are filed against the common judgment and order passed in Original Petition Nos. 11764 of 1996, 6540, 12539 and 13871 of 1997 and W.A. Nos. 1842 and 1938 of 1996, 84 and 351 of 1997 by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 16th April, 1998. Persons selected to the post of Sales Tax Officers in the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales tax Department by the Kerala Public Service Commission filed petitions in the High Court. They were selected and included in the ranked list published by the Commission on 13th May, 1995 which was to expire on 12th May, 1998. As authorities failed to appoint them against the vacancies that arose in the quota earmarked for direct recruits and since only a limited number of candidates have been appointed, they approached the Court for a mandamus and consequential directions. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala arrived at the conclusion that Rule 5 deals with the subject-matter governed by the Special Rules and both have to be harmoniously read and understood. Therefore, direct recruitment to 20 of the vacancies provided in the Special Rules shall be worked out on the basis of the provisions contained in Note (3) The Court also held that there is no repugnancy between Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Rules Category 3 and Rule 5 of the General Rules.
2. The said judgment and order was set aside in writ appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the amendment brought to the General Rules (Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules) as per notification dated 5th December, 1992 would take away the rights of the petitioners for appointment against 20 of the successive substantive vacancies arising in the cadre of Sales Tax Officers and that the view taken by the Government was unsustainable. Secondly, it was held that amendment to the General Rules was in conflict with the Special Rules and it will not hamper the rights of persons arising out of Special rules. Hence petitions/appeals were allowed and the Secretary, Board of Revenue (Taxes) was directed to work out 20 of the successive substantive vacancies for direct recruitment as on 11th August, 1987 and arising thereafter as per the Special Rules so as to enable the Public Service Commission to appoint the eligible candidates. That order is challenged before us in this appeal by special leave.
3. Before appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and for deciding the issue involved, it would be necessary to refer first to the relevant rules of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 which is divided in Parts I, II and III. Part I contains definitions; Part II contains General Rules and Part III contains rules applicable to each Service or class of service. Rules 2(8) provides that “General Rules” means rules in Part II of these rules. Rules 2 and 5 of the General Rules are as under:-
“2. Relation to the Special Rules:- If any provision in the general rules contained in the part is repugnant to a provision in the Special Rules applicable to any particular service contained in Part III, the later shall in respect of that service, prevail over the provision in the general rules in this part.”
“5. Method of recruitment:- Where the normal method of recruitment to any service, class or category is neither solely by transfer but is both by direct recruitment and by transfer:-
(a) the proportion or order in which the Special Rules concerned may require vacancies to be filed by persons recruited direct and by those recruited by transfer shall be applicable only to substantive vacancies in the permanent cadre;
(b) a person shall be recruited direct only against a substantive vacancy in such permanent cadre, and only if the vacancy is one which should be filled by a direct recruit under the Special Rules referred to in clause (a) and
(c) recruitment to all other vacancies
Ajay Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd.
Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana
R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
A.B. Krishna & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Chanan Ram & Anr.
Maharaj Shree Umaid Mills Limited v. Union of India
M/s. Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.