OM PRAKASH SHUKLA versus AKHILESH KUMAR SHUKLA & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 855 · Decided: 18-03-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

--'· 
Vo 
AKllILESH KilMAR Sll1lKLA. & ORS, 
MARCH 18, 1986 
[A.P, SEN, E.S, VENKATARAMIAH AND B.C. RAY, JJ,] 
U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishments 
Rules, 1947/Rules for the Recruitment of Ministerial Staff to 
the Subordinate offices, 1950/Subordinate Civil Courts Minis-
terial Establishment 
(Amendment) 
Rules, 
1969 Subordinate 
Off tr.es Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitm~nt) Rules, 1975, 
Rules 5, 9-12, and Appendix II 
of 
194 7 Rules 
Recruitment to establishment - 1950 Rules - Applicability of, 
Interpretation of statutes : Doctrine of implied repeal 
A 
B 
c 
- Applicability of. 
D 
Recruitment to the ministerial establisbllent in the 
Subordinate Civil Courts of the United Provinces was regulated 
by the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establisha!lenta 
Rules 1947. Rule 11 provided that the recruitment shall be 
based on the results of a competitive examination and an 
interview, to be held in the manner laid down in Appendix II. 
On July 15, 1950, the Governor in supersession of all existing 
rules pr01111lgated the 'Rules for the Recruitment of Minis-
terial Staff to the Subordinate Offices, 1950' for the 
recruit ... nt of ministerial staff to the subordinate offices in 
the State including the offices of Subordinate Civil Courts. 
These Rules did not expressly say that the 1947 Rul• 
had been superseded, but clearly stated that the Governor had 
framed them in superaession of all existing rules and orders 
on the subject for recruitment to the ministerial establish-
ment of subordinate offices under his control. Rules 9 to 12 
and Appendix II of the 1947 Rules were thus 1uperseded. The 
two reasons in support thereof are : ( i) that in the defi -
nition of the expression "subordinste office" only the offices 
of the Secretariat, the State Legislature, the High Court and 
the Public Service Coamf.ssion stood excluded, and (ii) the 
E 
F 
G 
H 
856 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] l S.C.R. 
A 
~ 
offices of the Subordinate Civil Courts were included in the 
Schedule to those Rules. This is evidenced from the letter 
dated 12th February, 1973, written by Joint Registrar of the 
High Court to all the District Judges in the State. The High 
Court on its administrative side also understood that rules 9 
to 12 and Appendix II to the 1947 Rules had been superseded by 
B 
the 1950 Rules. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
In the meanwhile, the Governor had promlgated the 
Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Eatabliohment (Amendment) 
Rules, 1969 on September 20, 1969 &Mllding the 1947 Rules. The 
existence of these bending Ruleo of 1969 was not taken note 
of by the High Court at the ti• when. the said letter was 
iHued. The High Court waa following the 1950 Rulos even after 
the pr0m1lgation of the 1969 Amending Rul• for purposes of 
holding the C011petitive examination for recruit•nt to the 
ministerial staff in the Civil Court•• Then Subordinate 
Offices 
Minioterial Staff 
(Direct Recruit•nt) llules 1975 
were pro1111lgated by the Governor, in aupersession of all 
existing rules and orders on the subject. Rule 2 IUde thae 
Rules inapplicable to the Secretariat, the office of the State 
Legislature, Lokayukta, Public Service cOmission, High Colart, 
the Subordinate Courts under the control and ouperintendence 
of the High Court and all the establishments under the control 
of 
the Advocate-General. 
The 
1975 Rulos 
prescribed the 
qualifications and the pattern of a competitive examination 
for purposes of recruitment in substitution of what had been 
prescribed by the 1950 Rules. 
After the proaulgation of the 1975 Rules, a competiti...e 
examination waa held by the District Judge of Kanpur in 
September, 1981 and its results were announced on July 25, 
1983. This competitive examination was held in accordance with 
the 1950 Rules and the· 1969 Amending Rules were not followed. 
Respondent No. 
1, an unsuccessful candidate in the said 
competitive examination, filed a writ petition contending that 
the competitive examination which had been held in accordance 
with the 1950 Rules was an unauthorised one .and that it should 
have been held in accordance with the 1947 Rules as &Mnded by 
the 1969 Amending Rules. The High Court allGwed the petition 
holding that the intention of promlgating the 1950 Rules vaa 
only to pr•cribe a oyllabuQ different fl"Oll what had been 
praacribed in the 1947 Rules but the modification IUde by the 
1--
' 
Q,P, SHUKLA v. AKHILESH KUMAR 
857 
1950 Rules did not, however,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.