S. SATYAPAL REDDY ETC. versus GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 934 · Decided: 06-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S. SATYAPAL REDDY ETC. 
°"'' 
v. 
GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS. 
MAY 6, 1994 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
•
Co11stitutio11 of India, 1950 : Articles 246 and 254. 
1 
Seventh Schedule-List-III Entry 35--List-II-Entry 41. Central law-
c State /aw-Repugnancy between-Test of deterrninatimt-What is-Duty of 
Court-To apply Rule of Harmonious construction-Ascenainrne11t of inten-
tion of Parliament from a consideration of the entire scheme occupied field. 
A.P. Transport Subordinate Service Rules : Rule 6-Assistant Motor 
D 
Vehicles Inspector-Qualifications for recruitrnent--Prescriptio11 of Diploma 
by Ce11tra/ Government in rules framed under Motor Vehicles Act--Prescrip-
< 
tion of higher qualification i.e. Degree by State in rules framed under Article 
309-State Rule whether inconsistent with Central Rule. 
" 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section213-Scope of 
E 
Under the Rules made by the Central Government, under Section 
213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the qualification laid down for the 
post of Motor Vehicles Inspector was Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. 
However, under the A.P. Transport Subordinate Service Rules, framed by 
the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution, the State Govern-
.: 
F 
ment prescribed higher qualification i.e. degree in Mechanical Engineer-
ing. The appellants, Diploma-holders in Mechanical Engineering, applied 
'( 
for the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector, but were not called for interview, 
they unsuccessfully questioned before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, 
the competence of the State Government to prescribe the Degree qualifica-
G ti on. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants 
that (i) as the Motor Vehicles Act was made under Entry 35 of List III of 
the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution read with Article 24b of the 
Constitution, the Act receives paramountcy and the Central government 
..__ 
H alone is competent to prescribe the qualifications for recruitment to the 
934 
• 
I 
' 
• -<.. 
• 
' 
" :\ 
1 • ,. 
J. 
S.S. REDDY v. GOVf. OF A.P. 
935 
service under the Act and the power of the State Govt. to that extent gets A 
eclipsed; and (ii) since the State rule is in conllict with the Central rule 
would prevail over the State rule, be operation of Article 254 of the 
Constitution. 
On behalf of the Respondent-State, it was contended that (i) in view B 
of the provisions contained in Section 213, the State Govt. is not denuded 
of its powers to prescribe higher qualilications than the one prescribed by 
the Central Government; and (ii) there is no conflict between the power 
exercised by the Central Govt. under the Act vis-a-vis the power of the State 
Govt. under Entry 41 of List II of "the public service" and power preserved 
to the Governor exercisable under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitu- c 
ti on, and therefore, the State rules are not ultra vires. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. There is no conflict in the exercise of the power by both D 
Central and State Government or inconsistency in operation of the 
provisions of the statutory rules made by the Governor under proviso to 
Article 309 and the rules made by the Central .Govt. under Section 213(4) 
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. [941-E] 
E 
2. Whether there is an apparent repugnance or conflict between 
Central and State Laws occupying the same field and cannot operate 
harmoniously, in each case the court has to examine whether the 
provisions occupying the same field with respect to one of the matters 
enumerated in the concurrent list and whether there exists repugnancy 
between the two laws. Article 254 lays emphasis "with respect to that F 
matter". Repugnancy arises when both the laws are fully inconsistent or 
are absolutely irreconciable and when it is impossible to obey the, one 
without disobeying the other. The repugnancy would arise when conflicting 
results are produced when both the statutes covering the same field are 
applied to a given set uf facts. But th.e court has to make every attempt to 
reconcile the provisions of the apparently conDicting laws and court would G 
endeavour to give harmonious construction. The purpose of determining 
inconsistency is to ascertain the intention of the Parliament which would 
be gathered from a consideration of the entire field occupied by the law. 
The proper test would be whether effect can be given to the provisions of 
both the laws or whether both the laws can stand together. [

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