R S RAGHUNATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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Rules and that they are not meant to be so since the Special Rules also are very much in force inasmuch as they are not superseded.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.