Holding

The 1992 amendment adding Note 3 to Rule 5 of the General Rules is not repugnant to the Special Rules, and as a later general provision it prevails over the earlier special provision, without retrospective effect.

Summary

The petitioners, selected by the Kerala Public Service Commission and placed on a select list in 1995, claimed that they should be appointed to Sales Tax Officer vacancies under the Special Rules, which required 20% of successive substantive vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment. The State had amended the General Rules in 1992 by adding Note 3 to Rule 5, prescribing that the ratio of direct recruitment be calculated on the basis of cadre strength rather than existing vacancies. The question before the Supreme Court was whether this amendment was repugnant to the Special Rules and, if so, which rule would prevail, and whether the amendment could be applied retrospectively to candidates selected before its insertion. The Court held that the amendment was not repugnant and, being a later general rule, it superseded the earlier Special Rules; moreover, it could not be given retrospective effect to the petitioners whose selection occurred prior to 1992. Consequently, the petitioners had no vested right to appointment under the pre‑amendment rules. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment and restored the Single Judge’s order.

Issues considered

Whether the amendment (Note 3 to Rule 5) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, is repugnant to the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Services Special Rules and which rule prevails.
Whether the 1992 amendment to the General Rules can be applied retrospectively to candidates selected before its incorporation.
Interpretation of the method for calculating the 20% direct‑recruitment quota for successive substantive vacancies.

Subjects

recruitmentdirect recruitmentspecial rulesgeneral rulesstatutory interpretationretrospective effectvacancy calculationcadre strengthpublic service commissionappointment

Judgment

A S. PRAKASH AND ANR.
v.
K.M. KURIAN AND ORS.

B
MAY 13, 1999

[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
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.
E
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
Services Rules, the object of the Government was to achieve uniformity of c
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.
Ltd., (1987) I SCC 424 and A.B. Krishna v. State of Karnataka, (1998) 3
E
.._ 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
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
F

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. Baby
Krishnan, Romy Chacko, Rajiv Mehta, M.T, George, C.S. Srinivasa Rao,
B K.M.K. Nair, Vipin Nair and P.B. Suresh for the Appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .

c
SHAH, J. Leave granted.

These appeals are filed against the common judgment and order passed
-- •

in Original Petition Nos. 11764of1996, 6540, 12539 and 13871of1997 and
W.A. Nos.1842 and 1938of1996, 84 and 351 of 1997 by the Division Bench
of the Kerala High Court on 16th April, 1998. Persons selected to the post
of Sales Tax Officers in the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales tax Department
D by the Kerala Public .Service Commission filed petitions in the High Court.
They were selected and included in the ranked list published by the Commission
on 13th May, 1995 which was to expire on 12th May, 1998. As authorities
failed to appoint them against the vacancies that arose in the quota earmarked
for direct recruits and since only a limited number of candidates have been
appointed, they approached the Court for a mandamus and consequential
E directions. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala arrived at
the conclu_sion that Rule 5 deals with the subject-matter governed by the
Special Rules and both have to be harmoniously read and understood.
Therefore, direct recruitment to 20% of the _vacancies provided in the Special
Rules shall be worked out on the basis of the. provisions <::ontained in Note
--
3. The Court also held that there is no repugnancy between Kerala Agricultural
F Income Tax and Sales Tax Rules Category 3 and Rule 5 of the General Rules.

The said judgment and order was set aside in writ appeal. The Division
Bench of the High Court held that the amendment brought to the General .'
Rules [Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules] as per notification dated
G 5th December, 1992 would take away the rights of the petitioners for I
'
..--
appointment against 20% of the successive substantive vacancies arising in
the cadre of Sales Tax Officers and that the view taken by the Government
was unsustainable. Secondly, it was held that amendment to the General Rules
was in conflict with the Special Rules and it will hamper the rights of persons
arising out of Special rules. Hence petitions/appeals were allowed and the
H Secretary, Board of Revenue (Taxes) was directed to work out 20% of the
S. PRAKASH v. ~.M. KURIAN [SHAH, J.] 613

- successive substantive vacancies for direct recruitment as on 11th August,
1987 and arising thereafter as per the Special Rules so as to enable the Public
Service Commission to appoint the eligible candidates. That order is challenged
A

before us in this appeal by special leave.

Before appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for
the parties and for deciding the issue involved, it would be necessary to refer B
first to the relevant rules of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules,
1958 which is divided in Parts I, II and III. Part I contains definitions; Part II
contains General Rules and Part III contains rules applicable to each Service
or class of service. Rule 2(8) provides that "General Rules" means rules in Part
II of these rules. Rules 2 and 5 of the General Rules are as under:- C

"2. Rf!lation to the Special Rules:- If any provision in the general
rules contained in the part is repugnant to a provision in the Special
Rules applicable to any particular service contained in Part III, the
later shall in respect of that service, prevail over the provision in the
general rules in this part." D

"5. Method ofrecruitment: - Where the normal method ofrecruitment
to any service, class or category is neither solely by transfer but is
both by direct recruitment and by transfer: -
E
(a) the proportion or order in which the Special Rules concerned may
require vacancies to be filled by persons recruited direct and by those
recruited by transfer shall be applicable only to substantive vacancies
in the permanent cadre;

....._ (b) a person shall be recruited direct only against a substantive F
vacancy in such permanent cadre, and only if the vacancy is one
which should be filled by a direct recruit under the Special Rules
referred to in clause (a) and

(c) recruitment to all other vacancies shall be made by transfer. G

Note: (I) All permanent vacancies and temporary vacancies except
those of short duration shall be treated as substantive vacancies.

(2) Leave vacancies and vacancies of less than 6 months' duration.
shall be treated as vacancies of short duration. H
'>-
I

614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 3 S.C.R.

A (3) Whenever a ratio or percentage is fixed for different methods ofI
recruitment/appointment to a post the number of vacancies to be filled
up by candidates from each method shall be decided by applying the
fixed ratio or percentage to the cadre strength of the post to which
the recruitment/transfer is made and not to the vacancies existing at
that time."
B
The aforesaid Note (3) was added by the Rules called the Kerala State
Subordinate Services (Amendment) Rules, 1992. The object and reason for
amending the said rule is mentioned in the Explanatory Note which inter
alia provides that for various posts in the Departments of Government,
C appointments are to be made by direct recruitment and by transfer; the
vacancies are filled up. on the basis of ratio or percentage fixed in the
respective special rules; Government considered it necessary to clarify that
proportionate vacancies to be filled up by different methods should be
calculated on the basis of the cadre strength and not on the basis of total
number of vacancies. For achieving the said objects the Rules were amended.
D
Further, the aforesaid Rules are to be construed along with the 'Kerala
Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax S'ervices (Rules)'. These Rules
provides that the said Sl<rvice shall consist of categories l, I A, 2, 3 and 4.
Agricultural Income Tax Officers and other are mentioned in Category 3.
Rule 2 provides that appointment to the various categories shall be made as
E follows: -

Category Method of appointment

I.
F
2.
0 3. Agricultural income tax
Officers, Intelligence Officers, ·.•

Sales Tax Officers, Additional
20% of the successive substantive
G Law Officer, Manager,
vacancies shall be filled or reserved
Agricultural Income Tax and
to be filled by direct recruitment and
Sales Tax Appellate Tribunals,
the remaining shall be filled or
Superintendents in the Office of
reserved to be filled by transfer of
the Board of Revenue (Taxes)
Assistant Sales Tax Officers, Sales
and Managers in the Offices of
H Tax Inspectors, Agricultural Income
S. PRAKASH v. K.M. KURIAN [SHAH, J.) 615

the Deputy Commissioners of Tax Inspectors, Agricultural Income A
Agricultural Income Tax and Tax and Sales Tax Inspectors,
Sales Tax. Intelligency Inspectors, Check-Post
Inspectors and Junior
Superintendents of the Kerala
Agricultural Income Tax and Sales B
Tax Subordinate Service.

Notwithstanding anything contained
in Rule 2(12) of Part I of the Kerala
State and Subordinate Service Rules,
1958 persons employed in the C
Agricultural Income Tax and Sales
Sub-ordinate Service shall be
allowed relaxation of age limit up
to five years to compete for direct
recruitment. This amendment shall
be deemed to have come into force D
with effect from 1st April, 1981.

Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that Note (3) to Rule 5 of
the General Rules was added in to bring uniformity in calculating the ratio or
percentage of direct recruit and appointment by transfer in all services in the E
State of Kerala. Therefore, the services that are covered by Special Rules also
would be covered by Rule 5 including Note (3). As against this, learned
counsel for the direct recruits whose names are appearing on select list
submitted that there is conflict between Note (3) to Rule 5 of the General
Rules and the method of appointment provided in the Kerala Agricultural F
Income Tax and Sales Tax Services (Special Rules) as amended. Note (3)
provides that the number of vacancies are to be filled in from the direct
recruits and transferees by applying a fixed ratio or percentage to the cadre
strength, while the Special Rule contemplates that the percentage or ratio
should be fixed by taking into account the 'successive substantive vacancies'
arising at a point of time. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the G
aforesaid conflict Special Rules would prevail particularly because Rule 2 of
General Rules provides that in case of repugnancy between the two, special
rule would prevail. He relied upon the principle expressed in the maxim
'generalia special bus non derogant' which means general things do not
derogate from special things and 'generaliabus specialias derogant' which
according to Osborn's Law Dictionary means special things derogate from H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A general things.

Before appreciating the rival contentions, we would fi~st refer to the
established principles for interpreting the effect of amendment in Rule 5 of
General Rules vis a vis the special rules for recruitment, which prescribes ratio
or percentage of appointment by direct recruitment, and by transfer. The law
B on this point is well settled to the effect that from the consideration of the
general enactment if the intention of the legislature was to establish a rule of
universal application, in such cases, a special provision must give way to the
general provision. (Re: Maharaj Shree Umaid Mills Limited v. Union ofIndia,
[1963] Supp. 2 SCR 515 at 531. Dealing with similar situation in the case of
C Mis Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd v. The Commissioner of Income Tax,
[1959] SCR 729 at 737, this Court observed:-

"Now the rule of construction expressed in the maxim generalia
specialibus non derogant is well settled, and we shall also assume in
favour of the appellant that the agreement Ex.A, is a special law in
the nature of a private Act passed by the British Parliament, and that
D
accordingly s. 3 of the Ordinance should not be construed, unless the
contrary appears expressly or by necessary implication, as repealing
the provisions of Ex. A. But ultimately, the question is what does the
language of the enactment mean?"

E If the language is clear and unqualified, general rule would prevail.

Similarly, in the case of Ajay Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India,
[1984] 3 SCC 127 (page 153), the Court dealt with the rule of interpretation
with regard to the general law as well as the special law and held as under:-

"The general rule to be followed in case of conflict between two
F
statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier one. In other words, a
prior special law would yield to a later general law, if either of the
two following conditions is satisfied: (i) The two are inconsistent
with each other. (ii) There is some express reference in the later to
the earlier enactment. If either o~ these two conditions is fulfilled,
G the later law, even though general, would prevail."

The Court further held: "From the text and the decisions, four tests
are deducible and these are (i)The Legislature has the undoubted
right to alter a law already promulgated through subsequent
legislation, (ii) A special law may be altered, abrogated or repealed
H- by a later general law by an express provision, (iii) A later general
S. PRAKASH v. K.M. KURIAN [SHAH, J.] 611
law will override a prior special law if the two are so repugnant to each A
other that they cannot co-exist though no express provision in that
behalf is found in the general law, and (iv) It is only in the absence
of a provision to the contrary and of a clear inconsistency that a
special law will remain wholly unaffected by a later general law. See
in this connection, Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth B
Edition, pages 196-198."

Further, in the case of R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka and
Another, [1992) 1 SCC 335, the Court dealt with the Karnataka General
Services (Motor Vehicle Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1976. In concurring
judgment, Kuldip Singh, J. observed: C
"Even the general law later in time, prevails over the earlier special
law if it clearly and directly supercedes the said special law - is an
unexceptionable proposition of law."

In the aforesaid case, Jayachandra Reddy, J.referred to the decision in D
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.,
[1987) 1 SCC 424, wherein the Court observed: "interpretation is best which
makes the textual interpretation match the contextual" and relied upon the
following paragraph 33 of the said judgment:

"Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are E
the basis of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture,
context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are
important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual
interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted
when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute
must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by F
clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at,
in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute- maker,
provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases
and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute
is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these G
glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each
section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed
to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute
and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have
to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in
its place." H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A Learned counsel· for the appellant also referred to Craise on Statute
Law, page 381 which is as under:-

"(iii) Special enactment repealed by implication if utterly repugnant to
subsequent general Act.

But the rule must not be pressed too far, for, as Bramwell L.J. said
B
in Pellas v. Neptune Marine Insurance Co., (1980) 5 C.P.D. 34, 40
"a general statute may repeal a particular statute'" And if a special
enactment, whether it be in a public or a private Act, and a subsequent
general Act are absolutely repugnant and inconsistent with one
another, the courts have no alternative but to declare the prior
c special enactment repealed by the subsequent general Act. Thus in
Bramston v. Colchester Corpn. (1856) 6 E & B. 246, 253, 254 it was
held that the provisions of a local Act, under which certain
arrangements had been made for maintaining borough prisoners in
county goals, were repealed by section 18 of the general Prisons Act
1842 "for,' said Lord Campbell C.J., "I think it was the intention of the
D
legislature to sweep away all local peculiarities, though sanctioned by
special Acts, and to establish one uniform system except in so far as
these are express exceptions"; and Wightman J. added "It was intended
to make one general law superseding all local laws as to prisons
and repealing all local Acts."
E
As against this, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the
decision in A. B. Krishna and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others,
[1998] 3 sec 495 and submitted that where there are general words in a
later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending
them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, special rule cannot
F be held to be indirectly repealed or altered mer.ely by force of such general
words without any indication of a particular intention to do so.

From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that if the intention of the
rule making authority was to establish a rule of universal application to all
G the services in the State of Kerala for which special rules are made, then
special rules will give way to the general rules enacted for that purpose. This
has to be found out from the language used in the rules which may be
express or by implication. If the language is clear and unqualified, subsequent
general rule would prevail despite repugnancy. If the intention of the rule-
making authority is to sweep away all the special rules and to establish a
H uniform pattern for computation of the ratio or percentage of direct recruits
S. PRAKASH v. K.M. KURIAN [SHAH, J.] 619
and by transfer, in such case, the special rules will give way. On the basis A
of the aforesaid settled principles, let us interpret rule 5 as well as Note (3)
and the method of recruitment prescribed under the special rules. Rule 5
quoted above provides method of recruitment to any service, class or category
where the method of recruitment is neither solely by direct recruitment nor
by transfer but is both by direct recruitment and by transfer. It is made
specifically applicable to the 'special rules'. Clause (a) provides that the B
proportion or order will be applicable only to substantive vacancies in
permanent cadre; clause (b) provides that direct recruitment shall be only
against substantive vacancy in permanent cadre; and recruitment to all other
vacancies shall be made by transfer. Note (1) and (2) provide that all
permanent vacancies and temporary vacancies except those of short duration C
shall be treated as substantive vacancies. Note (3) specifically provides that
'whenever' a ratio or percentage is fixed (in special Rules) for different
methods of recruitment to a post, the number of vacancies to be filled up by
candidates from each method is to be decided by applying a fixed ratio or
percentage to the cadre strength of the post to which the recruitment is made
and 'not to the vacancies existing at that time.' Therefore, the entire Rule D
5 deals with the special rules which provide for filling up of the vacancies
to any service, class or category by direct recruitment and by transfer. The
language of Note (3) is crystal clear and is for removal of any ambiguity by
using positive and negative terms. It applies to all special rules .whenever a
ratio or percentage is prescribed in the Rules. It also emphathetically states E
that it has to be computed on the cadre strength of the post to which the
recruitment is to be made and not on the basis of the vacancies existing at
that time.

Further, the special rules that provide for different categories and method
of appointment, mention for the posts of 'Agricultural Income Tax Officers F
and Ors.' in category 3. In the said category, method of appointment is (i) 20%
of the successive substantive vacancies is to be filled or reserved to be filled
by direct recruitment and (ii) the remaining is to be filled or reserved to be
filled by transfer. But, how the 'successive substantive vacancies' of permanent
nature as provided in Rule 5 clauses (a), (b) and note (1) are to be calculated G
or computed is not provided. It nowhere provides that vacancies which are
to be filled up should be calculated on the basis of existing vacancies at a
particular point of time or year or at the time of recruitment. For filling up the
said lacuna and also for avoiding any controversy as well as to have a
uniform pattern in all services ·with regard to filling up of vacancies in all
cadres in the State services on the basis of fixed ratio or percentage betwe~n H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A the direct recruit and appointment by transfer, Note (3) is added. If we take
an illustration that cadre strength of a particular post is l 000 and the recruitment
is to be made to 100 substantive vacancies, the authority has to find out how
many direct recruits and transferees are holding the said post. If transferees
-
are holding 700 posts and direct recruits are holding 200 posts then in such
B a situation 20% quota of direct recruit is already filled up. Therefore, appointment
would be required to made only by transfer. As against this, if direct recruits
are holding only l 00 posts and remaining 800 posts are held by transferees,
then 100 posts would be required to be filled up by direct recruit (20% of 1000)
and remaining 100 posts would be required to be filled up by transfer. This
would remove the imbalance of percentage between direct recruit and the
C transferees for most of the times. The result would be the question of reserving
the post either for the direct recruit or for the transferee might not survive,
as all throughout the proportion or ratio would be maintained. Further, by
adding Note (3) to Rule 5, the object of the Government was to achieve
uniformity of calculating the successive substantive vacancies for appointment.
D
The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that as
per Rule 2 of the General Rules quoted above, if there is any repugnancy
between the general rule and the special rules applicable to any particular
service, then, special rules are to prevail in respect of said service over the
E provisions in the general rules. It is submitted that Rule 5 and Note (3) of that
Rule are part of the General Rules and, therefore, the special rule in the Kerala
Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Services prescribing method of
appointment would prevail. It is contended that the said rule specifically
provides that 20% of the 'successive vacancies' shall be filled up by direct
recruit and remaining shall be filled by transfer. It is, therefore, submitted that
F whenever substantive vacancies are to be filled in, 20% of the said vacancies
are required to be filled in by direct recruit and remaining vacancies are
required to be filled in by transfer. He referred to the maxim 'generalia
specialiabus non derogant' meaning thereby general things do not derogate
from special things and 'generaliabus specialias derogant' which means special
G things derogate from general things.

In our view, the aforesaid submission is without any substance. As ...
discussed above, rule 5 of the General Rule is enacted to govern special rules
with regard to the method of recruitment in cases when appointments are by
direct recruitment and by transfer in any substantive vacancies in permanent
H cadre. The language used in Rule 5 is clear and unqualified. The intention of
S. PRAKASH v. K.M. KURIAN [SHAH, J.] 621

the legislature of adding Note 3 is also clear and is added to fill in existing A
lacuna in the method of recruitment provided in special rules. As stated
above, for appointment to category 3, i.e. to the post of Agricultural Income
Tax Officers and others, method of appointments only provides that 20% of
successive substantive vacancies shall be filled or reserved to be filled by
direct recruitment and the remaining vacancies are to be filled or reserved to B
be filled by transfer. On what basis the substantive vacancies are to be
determined was not provided and therefore that lacuna is filled up by the
aforesaid Note (3) in Rule 5. In any case, even if there is repugnancy or
inconsistency, the law is settled to the effect that general rule later in time

- prevails over earlier special rule if it clearly and directly supercedes the
special rule. It is also well settled that special rule can be altered, abrogated C
or repealed by general rule by an express provision. In the present case, the
language of Note (3) specifically makes it applicable to general rule stating
'whenever' the ratio or percentage is fixed for different methods of
recruitment, the method prescribed therein would apply. So the word
'whenever' would cover special rule prescribing ratio or percentage of
appointment between direct recruit and by transfer and the Rule making D
authority has specifically provided that ratio or percentage for the vacancies
is to be computed on the basis 'not to the vacancies existing at that time,"
but on the basis of the cadre strength. Hence, there is no question of
repugnancy between Rule 5, Note (3) and the method of appointment provided
in special rules. E
Further, in the present case, Note 3 was added by amending Rules with
effect from 5th December, 1992 while list of persons selected by Public
Service Commission for appointment to the Cadre was published on 13th
May, 1995. Therefore, persons who were selected and whose names are
included by the Public Service Commission in the select list would have no F
right to say that their recruitment should be governed by the Rules which
were existing prior. to 1992. However, it has been contended by learned
counsel for the selected candidates whose names are appearing in the Select
List that process of recruitment started on 11th. August, 1987 when· the
Public Service Commission issued advertisement inviting applications for G

- the post of Sales Tax Officers by direct recruitment (The number of notified
vacancies was 16) and that their appointments should be made on the basis
of the Rules existed at the relevant time. It is submitted that the amended
Rules would govern the future selection and will have no retrospective effect.
In our view, in the present case, there is no question of giving retrospective
effect to the Rules which are amended in 1992. Its effect is to be given after H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A its amendment and in the present case after 1995 when the selection process
was over. It is to be stated that the addition of Note 3 does not deal with the
selection process which was started in 1987 and the selection process is not
altered or amended. It is also well settled that a candidate selected and kept
on select list does not acquire any absolute right to appointment. Therefore,
B it is open to the Government to decide how many selected candidates are to
be appointed in service on the basis of ratio or percentage prescribed in the
service rules.

Learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the G.O.M.S.
No. 233/85/GAD dated 27.6.1985. That G.O. reads as follows:
c "The G.O. read above lays down among other things, that any change
made in the qualifications, age or method of appointment etc.
prescribed for a post after the issue of the notification by the Kerala
Public Service Commission inviting applications in the Gazette in
respect of that post will be given effect to for future selections only.
D In the letter read above the Secretary, Kerala Public Service
Commission has advised that the clarification may be issued regarding
the scope and ambit of the above Government order.

2. Government have accepted the ad\'.ice of the Public Service
Commission and are please to clarify that the changes in
E qualifications, method of appointment, age or other conditions of
recruitment introduced after the issue of a notification for selection
to the post by the Public Service Commission will be given effect to
in future selections only, except in cases where the changes announced
amount to concessions or exemptions to which persons already
included in the ranked list as well as prospective candidates will be
F entitled and where the changes are of such a minor nature that they
can be given effect without the necessjty of upsetting any selection
procedure under way or of rev.ising the ranked list's already prepared.

3. The sub-para (2) of the G.O. read above will stand modified to the
above extent."
G
From the aforesaid G.O., it is clear that during the selection process,
Government had accepted the advice of the Public Service Commission that
the changes in the qualifications, method of appointment, age or other
conditions ofrecruitment introduced after the issue of notification for selection
H to the post by the Public Service Commission will be given effect to in future
S. PRAKASH v. K.M. KURIAN [SHAH, J.] 623
selections only with an exception as mentioned therein. As stated earlier, in A
the present case selection process was not over till the list of selected
candidates was published by the Public Service Commission on 13th May,
1995 and the impugned Note (3) does not change qualifications, method of
appointment, age or other conditions of recruitment. It only fills up the lacuna
or clarifies the ambiguity prevailing for computation of ratio or percentage for B
appointment by direct recruitment and by transfer. Because of the aforesaid
factual position, in our view, it is not necessary to discuss judgments cited
by the learned counsel for the respondents. However, we would refer to one
decision rendered by this Court in Rajqsthan Public Service Commission v.
Chanan Ram and Another, [1998] 4 SCC 202, wherein after considering the
decision in the P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1998] Supp. C
SCC 740, this Court held that "if the recruitment rules underwent amendment
prior to actual filling up 'of the advertised posts, the amended rules would
apply". The Court also referred to a three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court
in Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana, [1993] Supp. 2 SCC 600, wherein it
has been held that when the special process of recruitment had not been
finalised and culminated into select list, the candidate did not have any right D
to appointment and that recruitment process could be stopped by the
Government at any time before a candidate has been appointed and as the
candidate has no vested right to get the process completed except that the
· Government could be required to justify its action on the touchstone of
Article 14. E
In this view of the matter, we hold that the amendment brought to the
general rules (Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules) by the Notification
dated 5th December, 1992 or as pointed out when it was published in the
gazette, i.e. 2nd February, 1993 is not repugnant to special rules and that there
is no question of taking away the rights of the candidates who were selected F
by the Public Service Commission.

In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench is set aside and the order passed by the
learned Single Judge is restored.
G
S.M. Appeals allowed.