ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The A.P. Public Service Commission had issued an advertisement on 20-4-1992 calling for applications for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors in Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service. Though appellants had applied for the said posts, since they possessed only the qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, they were not called for interview. The appellants, therefore, filed O.A. Nos. 2757 of 1992 and batch in the A.P. Administrative Tribunal questioning the competence of Degree in Mechanical Engineering or Degree in Automobile Engineering or Diploma in Automobile Engineering or any equivalent qualification as conditions for recruitment, contending that it was the Central Government which had been conferred with the power under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short the Act, of prescribing the qualifications for appointment to any office or class of officers under the Act, which had prescribed the following :

"1. Qualifications : .

(1) Minimum general educational qualification of a pass in Xth standard; and

(2) (i) a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (3-year course) or

(iii) a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education (3-year course) or

(iv) any qualification in either of the above disciplines declared equivalent by the Central Government or State Government."

When the appellants, had, become qualified to apply for and seek recruitment to the said posts, the prescription of qualification of graduation in Mechanical Engineering by the State Government coming in conflict with the Act, stands superseded. The Tribunal by its order dated 30-7-1993repelled the contention and dismissed the petitions. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

3. Shri K. Madhava Reddy and Shri Gururaja Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that as the Act was made under Entry 35 of List III of the Vllth Schedule to the Constitution read with Article 246 of the Constitution, the Act receives paramountcy and the Central Government alone is competent to prescribe the qualifications as to eligibility for recruitment as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors and the power of the State Government to that extent gets eclipsed and the prescription of qualification of Degree in Mechanical Engineering becomes void since it runs in conflict with the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government. Therefore, the State rules become inapplicable. In support thereof, it was further contended that other State Governments had fallen in line in prescribing the qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering prescribed by the Central Government and the State Government of A.P. had not adopted that course. Since the State rule is in conflict with the Central rule, the Central rule would prevail over the State rules, by operation of Article 254 of the Constitution.

4. Shri V.R. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General argued that sub-section (1) of Section 213 of the Act preserves the power to the State Government to appoint an officer or class of officers to implement the Act, sub-section (4) gives power to the Central Government to prescribe "the minimum qualifications" for appointment as officers or class of officers to such posts under the Act and that would not mean that the State Government having been given the power to appoint the officers, are denuded of their power to prescribe higher qualifications than the one prescribed by the Central Government. There is no conflict between the power exercised by the Central Government under the Act vis-a-vis the power of the State Government under Entry 41 of List II of "the public service" and power preserved to the Governor exercisable under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Therefore, the State rules are not ultra vires.

5. Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we find that the States contention merits acceptance. It is seen that marginal not