1999 (5) TMI 634 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Conflict between General Rules and Special Rules.
2. Interpretation of Rule 5 and Note (3) of the General Rules.
3. Applicability of amended rules to ongoing selection processes.
4. Rights of candidates selected by the Public Service Commission.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conflict between General Rules and Special Rules:

The core issue was whether the amendment to the General Rules by the Notification dated 5th December 1992 was in conflict with the Special Rules governing the recruitment of Sales Tax Officers in Kerala. The Division Bench of the High Court had held that the amendment to the General Rules would take away the rights of the petitioners for appointment against 20% of the successive substantive vacancies arising in the cadre of Sales Tax Officers, and that the amendment was in conflict with the Special Rules. However, the Supreme Court observed that Rule 2 of the General Rules provides that in case of repugnancy between the General Rules and Special Rules, the Special Rules would prevail. The Court further clarified that if the language of the general rule is clear and unqualified, it would prevail despite repugnancy, establishing a rule of universal application.

2. Interpretation of Rule 5 and Note (3) of the General Rules:

Rule 5 and Note (3) of the General Rules were central to the dispute. Rule 5 specifies the method of recruitment where it is both by direct recruitment and by transfer, and Note (3) clarifies that the number of vacancies to be filled by each method should be calculated based on the cadre strength and not on the existing vacancies. The Supreme Court emphasized that the language of Note (3) is clear and unqualified, and it applies to all special rules whenever a ratio or percentage is prescribed. The Court stated that the intention of the legislature in adding Note (3) was to establish a uniform pattern for computing the ratio or percentage of direct recruits and transferees, thereby filling any lacuna in the Special Rules.

3. Applicability of amended rules to ongoing selection processes:

The respondents contended that the recruitment process that began in 1987 should be governed by the rules existing at that time, and that the amended rules should not apply retrospectively. The Supreme Court held that there was no question of giving retrospective effect to the amended rules. The amendment, which came into effect in 1992, was applicable after its enactment, and since the selection process was not completed until 1995, the amended rules were applicable. The Court also noted that the amendment did not alter the selection process but clarified the computation method for the ratio or percentage of appointments.

4. Rights of candidates selected by the Public Service Commission:

The candidates selected by the Public Service Commission argued that their appointments should be governed by the rules existing at the time of the advertisement in 1987. The Supreme Court reiterated that a candidate on a select list does not acquire an absolute right to appointment. The Government has the discretion to decide the number of selected candidates to be appointed based on the prescribed ratio or percentage in the service rules. The Court also referred to a Government Order (G.O.M.S. No. 233/85/GAD) which clarified that changes in qualifications, method of appointment, age, or other recruitment conditions introduced after the issue of a notification for selection would apply to future selections only, except in cases where the changes amount to concessions or exemptions.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench, and restored the order of the learned Single Judge. The Court held that the amendment to the General Rules was not repugnant to the Special Rules and did not take away the rights of the candidates selected by the Public Service Commission. The amended rules were applicable to the selection process that culminated in 1995, and the computation of vacancies should be based on the cadre strength as clarified by Note (3) to Rule 5.