S. PRAKASH AND ANR. versus K.M. KURIAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 610 · Decided: 13-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S. PRAKASH AND ANR. 
v. 
K.M. KURIAN AND ORS. 
MAY 13, 1999 
B 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Kera/a State and Subordinate Services Rules 1958, Rule 5 Note (3) 
and Kera/a Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Services (Rules), Rule 2-
Appointmenis to posts of Sales Tax Officers-Special Rules providing that 
C 20% of successive vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment without 
providing method/or determining vacancies-Lacunae filled up by amendment 
to General Rule-Whether amended General Rule will Prevail over Special 
rule-Held, yes; the amendment to the general rule was not repugnant to the 
special rule. 
D 
E 
Interpretation of statutes-Retrospectivity-Selection process 
commencing in 1987 but Select list published in 1995-Amendment to General 
rules in 1992-Whether persons on select list would be governed by Rules 
existing prior to 1992-Held, no; persons who came on to the select list in 
1995 had no right to say that they should be governed by pre-1992 rules. 
The process for recruitment to the post of Sales Tax Officers by direct 
recruitment commenced in August, 1987 when the Public Service Commission 
invited applications. The respondents who were selected and included in the 
Select list published in May, 1995 did not get appointed against vacancies 
F earmarked for direct recruits and they approached the High Court by way 
of writ petitions. 
Single Judge of the Kerala High Court held that Notes (3) of Rule 5 
of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules 1958 (General Rules), 
G which had been inserted by an amendment in 1992, providing for the basis 
for determination of the vacancies has to be harmonised with Rule 2 of the 
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Services ('Special Rules') 
which provided that 2U% of sul;!cessive vacancies shall be filled by direct 
recruitment. The Court held that the 20% vaca~cies had to be worked out 
in terms of Note (3) to Rule 5 of the General Rules and that there was no 
H repugnancy between the General and Special Rules. 
610 
-
S. PRAKASH v. K.M. KURIAN 
611 
-
The Division Bench in writ appeal reversed the Single Judge holding A 
that the General Rules were in conflict with the Special Rules and that the 
20% vacancies had to be worked out only as per the Special Rules. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The amendment brought to the general rules was not B 
repugnant to special rules and there was no question of taking away the 
rights of the candidates who were selected by the Public Service Commission. 
[623-FI 
1.2. By adding Note (3) to Rule 5 of the Kera la State and Subordinate c 
Services Rules, the object of the Government was to achieve uniformity of 
calculating the successive substantive vaca11cies for appointment and to fill 
the existing lacuna in the method of recruitment provided in special rules. 
There was no question of repugnancy between Rule 5, Note (3) and the 
method of appointment provided in special rules. Even if there was repugnancy, 
the general rule later in time prevailed over earlier special rule. [621-D) D 
Re-Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Limited v. Union of India, [1963) 
Suppl. 2 SCR 515; Mis Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner 
of Income Tax, [1959) SCR 729; Ajay Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India, 
(1984) 3 SCC 127; R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, [1992] 1 SCC 
335; Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. E 
Ltd., (1987) I SCC 424 and A.B. Krishna v. State of Karnataka, (1998) 3 
.._ 
sec 495, referred to . 
Craie's on Statue Law, p.381, referred to 
2. Persons who were selected and whose names were included by the F 
--
Public Service Commission in the select list would have no right to say that 
their recruitment should be governed by the Rules which were existing prior 
to 1992. There is no question of giving retrospective effect to the Rules 
which are amended in 1992. (621-F-H) 
Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Chanan Ram, [19981 4 SCC G 
202; P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1998) Supp SCC 740 
.... 
and Joi Singh Dalal, v. State of Haryana, [19931 Supp 2 SCC 600, 
reforred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3042-43 of 
1999. 
H 
612 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.4.98 of the Kerala High Court 
in W.A. No. 1938of1996. 
P.P. Rao, John Mathew, P. Krishnamurthy, T.L.V. Iyer, Ramesh Babu 
M.R., G. Prakash, B.V.. Deepak, L. Nageswara Rao, Roy Abraham, Ms.

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