Holding

The State may prescribe qualifications higher than the minimum prescribed by the Central law, and there is no repugnancy; both Central and State rules can operate harmoniously.

Summary

The appellants, holders of diplomas in Mechanical Engineering, applied for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in Andhra Pradesh but were rejected because the State's Transport Subordinate Service Rules required a degree. They challenged the State rule, arguing that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Section 213(4)) gave the Central Government exclusive authority to prescribe qualifications, making the State rule repugnant under Article 254 of the Constitution. The State contended that Section 213(4) only sets a minimum qualification, allowing the State to prescribe higher qualifications, and that its rule was made under the Governor's power under Article 309. The Supreme Court held that the Central rule establishes a minimum standard and does not preclude the State from imposing higher standards, and that the two sets of rules can be harmoniously construed without repugnancy. Consequently, the State rule was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Central Government's qualification requirement under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is exclusive and precludes the State from prescribing higher qualifications.
Whether the State's rule prescribing a degree qualification is repugnant to the Central rule under Article 254 of the Constitution.
Whether the Governor's power under Article 309 allows the State to make recruitment rules that include higher qualifications.
Whether the Central law enjoys paramountcy over the State law in the field of motor vehicle officer recruitment.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 246, s. Article 254, s. Article 309
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 213(1), s. 213(4)

Subjects

Constitutional lawFederalismRepugnancyMotor Vehicles ActQualification requirementsArticle 254Article 309Public service recruitmentCentral-State relations

Judgment

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
Vehicles Inspector-Qualifications for recruitrnent--Prescriptio11 of Diploma
D 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-
ti on.
G
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 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
of the provisions contained in Section 213, the State Govt. is not denuded B
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

1
• ,. 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
J. Article 309 and the rules made by the Central .Govt. under Section 213(4)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. [941-E]

2. Whether there is an apparent repugnance or conflict between E
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. [940-B-D] H
,
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A 3.1. Section 213 itself made the distinction of the powers exercisable
by the State Govt. and the Central Govt. in working the provisions of the
Act. It is the State Govt. that operates the provisions of the Act through
its officers. Therefore, sub-section (1) of section 213 gives power to the
State Govt. to create Transport Department and to appoint officers, as it
thinks lit. Sub-section (4) thereof also preserves the power. By necessary
B implication, it also preserves the power to prescribe higher qualifications
for appointment of officers of the State Govt. to man the Motor Vehicles
Department. What was done by the Central Govt. was only the prescription
of minimum qualifications, leaving the field open to the State Govt. con-
cerned to prescribe, if it finds necessary, higher qualifications. But while
c so prescribing, the State Govt. may accept the qualifications or prescribe
higher qualification but in no case prescribe any qualification less than
the qualifications prescribed by the Central Govt. under sub-section(4) of
section 213 of the Act. In the later event, i.e. prescribing lesser qualifica-
tions, both the rules cannot operate without colliding with each other.
(940-E-F, 941-R]
D
3.2. When both the rules are construed harmoniously, there is no
incompatability or inconsistency in the operation of the both the rules.
Both the rules can operate harmoniously and effect can be given to both
the Rules. Thus the qualification of inconsistency or repugnancy under
Article 254 of the Constitution does not arise. (941-B]
E
The Rule 6 of A.P. T.S.S. Rule invalid.

Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon, [1972] 2 S.C.R. 33, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4440-42
F
of 1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.93 of the Andbra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in 0.A.No. 2757 of 1992.

G K. Madhava Reddy, H.S. Gururaj Rao, G. Prakash, Ramakrishna
Reddy, T.V. Ratnam and A.D.N. Rao for the Appellants.

V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General and T.V.S.N. Chari for the
Respondents.

H The following Order of the Court was delivered :
S.S. REDDY v. GOVT. OF A.P. 937

Leave granted A
The AP. Public Service Commission had issued an advertisement on
April 20, 1992 calling for applications for recruitment to the posts of Asstt.
Motor Vehicles Inspectors in Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate
Service. Though applicants had applied for the said posts, since they
possessed only the qualification of diploma in Mechanical Engineering, B
they were not called for interview. Th.e appellants, therefore, filed 0.A.
Nos. 2757/92 and batch in the A.P. Administrative Tribunal questioning the.
competence of the State Govt. in prescribing the qualification of degree in
Mechanical Engineering or Degree in Automobile Engineering or diploma
in Automobile Engineering or any equivalent qualification as conditions
for recruitment, contending that it was the Central Government which had
c
been conferred with the power under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, for short 'the Act', of prescribing the qualifications for appoint-
ment to any office or class of officers under the Act, which had prescribed
the following:
11
D
1. QuaJifications :

(1) Minimum general educational qualification of a pass in X
standard; and

2(i) A Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (3 years course) or
E
(ii) ·····················

(iii) a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by the
State Board of Technical Education (3 years course) or

(iv) Any qualification in either of the above disciplines declared F
equivalent by the Central Govt. or State Govt."

When the appellants, had, become qualified to apply for and seek recruit-
ment to the said posts, the prescription of qualification of graduation in
Mechanical Engineering by the State Government coming in conflict with G
the Act, stands superceded. The Tribunal by its Order dated July 30, 1993
repelled the contention and dismissed the petitions. Thus, these appeals by
special leave.

-·- Shri K. Madhava Reddy and Shri Guraraja Rao, learned Senior
counsel. for the appellants contended that as the Act was made under Entry H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1994] 3 S.C.R.

A 35 of List III of the Vllth Schedule to the Constitution read with Art. 246
of the Constitution, the Act receives paramountcy and the Central Govt.
alone is competent to prescribe the qualifications as to eligibility for
recruitment as Asstt. Motor Vehicles Inspectors and the power of the State
Govt. to that extent gets eclipsed and the prescription of qualification of
degree in mechanical engineering becomes void since it run~ in conflict
B with the qualifications prescribed by the Central Govt. Therefore, the State
rules become inapplicable. In support thereof, it was further contended
that other State Governments had fallen in line in prescribing the qualifica-
tion of Diploma in Mechanical Engg. prescribed by the Central Govt. and
the State Govt. of A.P. had not adopted that course. Since the State rule
c is in conflict with the Central rule, the Central rule would prevail over the
State rules, by operation of Art. 254 of the Constitution.

Sri V.R. Reddy, learned A.S.G. argued that sub-s. (l) of s.213 of the
Act preserves the power to the State Govt. to appoint an officer or class
D of officers to implement the Act, sub-s.( 4) gives power to the Central G0\1.
11 11
to prescribe the minimum qualifications for appointment as Officers or
class of officers to s!lch posts under the Act and that would not mean that
the State Govt. having been given the power to appoint the officers, are
denuded of their power to prescribe higher qualifications than the one
prescribed by the Central Gm1. There is no conflict between the power
E 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 prO\;so to Art. 309 of the
Constitution. Therefore, the State rules arc not ultra vires.

F Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions,
we find that the State's contention merits acceptance. It is seen that
marginal note in s.213 for "appointment of Motor Vehicles Officers" indi-
cates the subject-matter of the Section. Sub-section (1) says that the State
Govt. may for the purpose of carrying into effect the proi-isions of this Act,
G establish Motor Vehicles Department and 11 appointmcnt as officers thereof
11
such persons as it thinks fit The power of appointment includes the power
•

to select a fit and competent person who it thinks fit to hold the post and
would discharge efficiently the functions assigned under the Act. It in-
cludes the power to prescribe qualifications to select suitable officers. The
Parliament preserved that power to the State Govt. under s.213(1) itself by
H allowing it to appoint their officers whom it finds fit to carry into effect the
S.S. REDDY v. GOVT. OF AP. 939
,.,....,._ provisions of the Act. Suh-s. (4) gives power to the Central Govt., having A
regard to the object of the Act, by a Notification in the Official Gazette
1 11
' to prescribe minimum qualification which the officers or class of officers
thereof shall possess for being appointed as such officer or to the cadre
belonging to the State Govt. Under Entry 41 of List II (State List) of Vllth
Schedule to the Constitution, the puLlic service includes the services of the
officers to be appointed under sub-s.(1) of s.213 of the Act. No doubt, as
B
contened by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Act receives
\. paramountcy, since under Entry 35, the subject under the Act covers the
\.
concurrent field. Sub-s.(4) of s.213 also preserve the power to prescribe
qualifications higher than that "minimum qualification" prescribed by the
Central Govt. to appoint the "said officers or any class thereof shall possess c
for being appointed as such".

In Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon, [1972] 2 SCR 33 at 47 considering
the scope of Art. 246 of the Constitution, a bench of seven Judges of this
Court held thus:
D
"Reading Art. 246 with the three Lists in the Seventh Schedule,
it is quite clear that Parliament has exclusive power to make laws ,
with respect to all the matters enumerated in List I and this
notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3) of Art. 246. The
State Legislatures have exclusive powers to make laws with respect E
to any of the matters enumerated in List II, but this is subject to
clauses (1) and (2) of Art. 246. The object of this subjection is to
make Parliamentary legislation on matters in Lists I and III
paramount. Under cl. (4) of Art. 246 Parliament is competent also
, to legislate on a matter enumerated in State List for any part of F
the territory of India not included in a State. Art. 248 gives the
r
residuary powers of legislation to the Union Parliament. 11

It is thus settled law that the parliament has exclusive power to make
law with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I or concurrent
power with the State legislature in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the G
Constitution which shall prevail over the State law made by the State
Legislature exercising the power on any of the Entries in List III. If the
said law is inconsistent with or incompatable tu occupy the same field to
that extent the State law stands superseded or becomes void. It is settled
law that when Parliament and the Legislature derive that power under Art. H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A 246(2) and the entry in the concurrent list. whether prior or later to the
law made by the State legislature, Art. 246(2) gives power, to legislate upon . ""'
any subject enumerated in the concurrent list, the law made by the Parlia-
ment gets paramountcy over the law made by the State Legislature unless
the State !av.' is reserved for consideration of the President and receives
his assent. Whether there is an apparent repugnance or conflict between
B
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. Art. 254 laid emphasis "with respect to that matter". Repugnancy
c arises when both the laws are fully inconsistent or are absolutely idecon-
cilable 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
of facts. But the court has to make every attempt to reconcile the provisions
D of the apparently conflicting laws and court would endeavour to give
harmonious construction. The purpose to determine 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
E both the laws can stand together. Section 213 itself made the distinction of
the powers exercisable by the State Govt. and the Central Govt. in working
the provisions of the Act. It is the State Govt. that operates the provisions
of the Act through its officers. Therefore, sub- s.(1) of s.213 gives power
to the State Govt. to create Transport Department and to appoint officers,
as it thinks fit. Sub-section (4) thereof also preserves the power. By
F necessary in1plication, it also preserves the power to prescribe higher
qualification for appointment of officers of the State Govt. to man the
Motor Vehicles Department. What was done by the Central Govt. was only
the prescription of minimum qualifications, leaving the field open to the
State Govt. concerned to prescribe if it finds necessary, higher qua1ifica-
G lions. The Governor has been given power under proviso to Art. 309 of the
Constitution, subject to any law made by the State Legislature, to make
rules regulating the recruitment which includes prescription of qualifica-
tions for appointment to an office or post under the. State. Since the
Transport Department under the Act is constituted by the State Govt. and
H the officers appointed to those posts belong to the State service, while
)-
/

S.S. REDDY v. GOVT OF AP. 941

appointing its own officers, the State Govt. as a necessary adjunct is A
entitled to prescribe qualifications for recruitment or conditions of service.
But while so prescribing, lhe State Govt. may accept the qualifications or
prescribe higher qualification but in no case prescribe any qualification less
than the qualifications prescribed by the Central Govt. under sub-s.( 4) of
s.213 of the Act. In the later event, i.e. prescribing lesser qualifications,
both the rules cannot operate without colliding with each other. When the
B
rules made by the Central Govt. under s.213(4) and the statutory rules
\ made under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution are construed har-
moniously, there is no incompatability or inconsistency in the operation of
both the rules to appoint fit persons to the posts or class of officers the
State Govt. vis-a-vis the qualifications prescribed by the Central Govt. c
under sub.-s.(4) of s.213 of the Act.

It is seen that A.P. Transport Subordinate Service Rules have been
made by the Governor exercising the power under proviso to Art. 309 of
the Constitution and rule 6 thereof prescribes the qualifications as
enumerated above. Graduation in mechanical engineering is one of the D
higher qualifications than diploma. Since s.213 (4) gives such power to the
State Govt. by operation of s.217 of the Act, the statutory rules remain valid
and operate in the field without colliding with the Central Rules. Both the
Rules would operate harmoniously and effect can be given to both the
Rules. Thus the question of inconsistency or repugnancy under Art.254 of E
the Constitution does not arise. Therefore, we do not find that there is any
conflict in the exercise of power by both Central and State Governments
or inconsistency in operation of the provisions of the statutory rules made
by the Government under proviso to Art. 309 and the rules made by the
Central Govt. under s.213(4) of the Acl. The recruitment as per State Rules
is valid and legal. F

The appeals are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances,
without costs.

T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.