IMPORTANT POINT
The State Government has the authority to prescribe qualifications for the Joint RTO position under Article 309 of the Constitution, and the Amendment Rules are valid and not repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

(P. Krishna Kumar, J.)

In this batch of original petitions, the petitioners challenge the validity of the Kerala Transport Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2022 (‘the Amendment Rules, 2022’, for short). By the said amendment, Rule 4 in the Special Rules for the Kerala Transport Service, 1981 (‘the Special Rules’, 1981, for short) has been amended to prescribe a technical qualification to the post of Joint Regional Transport Officer (Joint RTO), namely, a Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering awarded by any recognised institutions.

2. Though the petitioners raised the above challenge before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, by the common order impugned in these petitions, the Tribunal rejected their applications. For the sake of convenience, O.P.(KAT)No.416/2023 is considered as the leading case, in the following discussion.

3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

4. The upshot of the challenge is that when sub-clause (4) of Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short) specifically provides that it is for the Central Government to prescribe the minimum qualifications of the officers working under the Motor Vehicles Department established by the State Government, it is beyond the legislative power of the State Government to prescribe minimum educational qualifications for the post of Joint RTO and thus, the Amendment Rules, 2022 is ultra vires of Section 213(4) of the Act.

5. To defend the said assertion, the respondents stated that as the Central Government has not so far prescribed any minimum qualifications for the post of Joint RTO, it is well within the legislative power of the State to prescribe the minimum qualifications by exercising its rule-making power conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 .

6. Apart from the challenge that the Amendment Rules, 2022 is ultra vires of Section 213(4) of the Act, certain other contentions were also raised by each of the petitioners. Referring to the judgment of this court in Kerala Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors Association v. State of Kerala in O.P.No.5612/1981 dated 28.05.1982 (produced as Annexure A2 in O.P.(KAT)No.394/2023) and Basheer v. Kerala Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors Association ( 1995 KHC 521 ) which is produced as Annexure A3, it is contended that the amended rules were issued in order to nullify the said judgments, which state that Joint RTO is a non-technical and administrative post, which is not legally permissible. Various decisions of the Apex Court are cited to support this argument, including Indian Aluminium Co. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [(1996) 7 SCC 637] and In Re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal v. (AIR 1992 SC 522). It is also argued that when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law in a particular manner, the effect of the decision can be nullified only through a Validation Act, and not by amending the service rules.

7. It is further argued that since the State rule is repugnant to the Central Statute, it could have been promulgated only with the assent of the President of India. It is also contended that when the State Government is not the entity authorised under Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act to prescribe minimum qualifications for the posts in the Motor Vehicles Department, the question is not merely whether the rule in question is repugnant to the Central Act, but it is the very competency of the State to make the law. Referring to the decision in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others (1992 Supp. (2) SCC 651), it is contended that the competence of the law-making authority would depend on the ambit of the legislative power and the limitations imposed thereon as well as the limitations of the mode of exercise of the power.

8. It is further submitted that, when section