R. S. RAGHUNATH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 387 · Decided: 04-10-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
R. S. RAGHUNATH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 4, 1991 
[KULDIP SINGH, K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND 
B 
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Service Law : Kamataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) 
.r-
~ Rules,1977-{General Rules)/Karnataka General Service (Motor Vehicles 
Branch) Recrnitment Rules, 197(1-(Special Rules) Promotion to the post of C 
Deputy Commissioner of Transport-New Rule 3 (2) inserted in the General 
Rule-Stipulating seniority...cum-merit as basis-Special Rules providing 
selection as basis-i¥/iether the General Rules override the Special Rules. 
No11-obstante clause-Whether has the effect of abrogati11g the earlier 
Special law. 
· 
Statutory Co11strnction: 
Non-obstante clause-Scope of-Whether to be necessarily and always 
co-extensive with operative ponion--Courts to examine every word in its con-
text and use it in its widest sense. 
D 
The appellant was initially appointed as Inspector of Motor Vehicles E 
and was promoted as Assistant Regional Transport Officer in 1976, when 
the Karnataka General Service (Motor Vehicles Branch) (Recruitment) 
Rules, 1976 were in force. Karnataka Civil Services (General 
Recruitment) Rules, 1977 came into being thereafter. The appellant was 
promoted as Regional Transport Officer in 1981. The General Rules of 
1977 were amended in 1982 and sub·rule (2) of Rule 3 was inserted, and as F 
per the new Rule 3(2) the second Respondent was. promoted as Deputy 
Commissioner of Transport on seniority-cum-merit basis. 
The appellant flied an Application before the State Administrative 
. Tribunal questioning the promotion of the second Respondent on the 
ground that promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Transport G 
should have been made by selection and not on seniority-cum-merit basis. 
He also sought a declaration that the promotion of Respondent No. 2 was 
illegal and Respondent No. 1 be directed to consider the case of the 
appellant for promotion to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner 
wUh all consequenHal benefits. The Tribunal dismissed the application on H 
387 
388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R. 
A the ground that Rule 3(2) of the General Rules, which was introduced 
later, had the effect of overriding the earlier special Rules, and hence the 
promotion made as per Rule 3(2) of the General Rule was valid. 
B 
Aggrieved by the Tribunal's order, the ap:pellant preferred the 
presentappeal, by special leave. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the Special Rules 
. were exclusively meant to govern the recruitment and promotion. of 
officers of various cadres of the Motor Vehicles Department and the 
General Rules which generally regulate the recruitment of all State Civil 
C Services broadly even though later in point of time cannot abrogate the 
Special Rules and that they were not meant to be so since the Special Rules 
were not superseded and were very much in force. 
The Respondent-State contended that the non-obstante clause in 
Rule 3(2) of the General .Rules which was introduced later clearly indicate 
D 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. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: (By the. Court) 
Sub~rule (2) of Rule 3 o~ Karnataka Civil Services (General 
Recruitment) Rules, 1977 - (General Rules) has the overriding effect over 
the Kamataka General Service (Motor Vehicles Branch) (Recruitment) 
F 
Rules, 1976-(Special Rules). (400 D,E] 
Per Majority (By Reddy,J.-Kuldip Singh, J. concurring) 
1. 
Examining the scope of Rule 3(2) particularly along with other 
G General Rules, the context in which Rule 3(2) is made is very clear. It is 
not enacted to supersede the Special Rules. (403-G] 
2.1 The non-obstante clause is appended to a provision with a view to 
give the enacting part of the provision an overriding effect in case of a 
conOict. But the non-obstante clause need not necessarily and always be 
H co-extensive with the operative part so as to have the effect of cutting down 
)--
RAGHUNATH v. STAIB 
389 
the clear terms of an enactment and if the words of the enactment are clear A 
and are capable of a clear interpretation on a plain and grammatical 
construction of the words the non-obstante clause cannot cut down the 
construction and restrict the scope of its operation. In such eases the 
no

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