Judgment

KULDIP SINGH, J.:- 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.

K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.:- 3. This appeal is directed against the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore dismissing an application filed by the appellant. The principal question involved is whether sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (General Rules for short) has the overriding effect over the Karnataka General Service (Motor Vehicles Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1976 (Special Rules for short).

4. 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.

5. 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 Genera