Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1980 DIGILAW 298 (KAR)

D. N. SUBBA REDDY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1980-10-21

M.P.CHANDRAKANTARAJ

body1980
M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE above petitions are disposed of by this common order as in all of them the validity of the instructions issued by the respondent-State of Karnataka to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State by two letters dated 24th July, 1978 and 13th august, 1979 is questioned. ( 2 ) THE instructions contained therein are to the effect that the prescription of the time within which the tests prescribed under the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examination) Rules, 1974 should be reckoned in the case of Village Accountants from 20-1-1978 and not with effect from 22-7-1976. The true copies of the two circular letters are annexed as Exhibits A and B in writ petition 18809 of 1979. ( 3 ) IN the letter of 24th July 1978 the state Government has reasoned that the karnataka General Services (Revenue subordinate Branch) Village Accountants (Recruitment) Rules 1970 being the Rules made pursuant to the power conferred on the State by Ss. 16 and 197 of the Karnataka Land Revenue act, 1964, being superior to the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language)Examination rules, 1974, made under the proviso to art. 309 of the Constitution and having regard to the fact that the Village Accountants were included in the latter Rules by an amendment on 22-7-1976, the period of three years for passing the test under the latter Rules, prescribed for the post, should be reckoned from the date on which Rule-6 of the Karnataka General services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) village Accountants (Recruitment) Rules, 1970 came to be deleted i. e. , on 20th january 1978. ( 4 ) THE Government was clearly in error in issuing such instructions when the Statutory Rules have the same force. One set of Rules framed under the provisions of a statute cannot claim superiority over the rules framed under the proviso to Art 309 of the Constitution though the source of power for framing the rules may be different. The rules framed under the different sources of power have the same statutory effect and force. It is only in the case of repugnancy between the rules framed under the two different sources the need for testing the superiority of one or the other of the sources will arise. The rules framed under the different sources of power have the same statutory effect and force. It is only in the case of repugnancy between the rules framed under the two different sources the need for testing the superiority of one or the other of the sources will arise. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of C. S. Narasimha Murthy v. Siate of Mysore (1968) 2 Mys. LJ. 367. clearly held that so long as there was no repugnancy between the rules framed by virtue of the power conferred by the Kar. Land Revenue Act and the rules framed under the proviso to art 309 of the Corstitution both could, iide by side exist and be enforceable. In "act, even the language of Art 309 of the constitution itself goes to show that uness the Legislative enactment replaces the rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution in relation to recruitnent and service conditions of the serants of the State, the rules under Art. 09 of the Constitution prevail. It is however unnecessary in these petitions to say anything more about this controversy. ( 5 ) CERTAIN facts, briefly stated, clearly demonstrate that the Government was in error in directing the Deputy Commissioners concerned to reckon the date for passing the tests within the time limit reckoned from 10-1-1978 ( 6 ) THE 1974 rules referred to earlier came into force on 10-1-1974. Under rule 3 (2) (b) of the said rules, it is provided that if a new service examination is prescribed for the holder of any post or a new post is created and the service examination is prescribed for the holder of the new post after the commencement of those rules, the period prescribed under Rule 3 (2) (1) shall be computed from the date on which the Schedules I and 2 to the said rules came to be amended in the matter of prescription of examinations or inclusion of posts. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, as earlier noticed, the category of Village Accountants in Schedule II of the 1974 rules were introduced at Entry-2 in the place of first Grade Revenue Inspectors by a notification dated 7th July, 1976 but gazetted on 22nd July, 1976. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, as earlier noticed, the category of Village Accountants in Schedule II of the 1974 rules were introduced at Entry-2 in the place of first Grade Revenue Inspectors by a notification dated 7th July, 1976 but gazetted on 22nd July, 1976. The date of gazette publication being the relevant date to bring into operation the amendment in the manner stated above, the holders of the posts of Village Accountants were required to pass the prescribed examinations, as per column No. 3 of the said schedule, within two years from that date or within such period as by law was extended by the State Government. In fact, rule-4 of the 1974 Rules was amended extending the general time limit for passing the prescribed tests by one year from the date of prescription, which normally would be 10-1-1974, the date on which the 1974 Rules came into effect. But, in view of the fact that the Village Accountants themselves came to be introduced in the II Schedule with effect from 22-7-1976 and having regard to Rule 3 (2) (b) of the 1974 rules, the statutory period within which all holders of the posts of Village accountants are required to pass the prescribed examinations is within three years from 22-7-1976. Therefore, any action taken by the concerned Deputy Commissioners either to promote Village Accountants to the higher cadre who have passed the prescribed examinations on or before 21st July, 1979 or failing to revert them for not having passed the same before that date would be clearly opposed to law. In other words, the Village Accountants who have passed the prescribed examinations before 21-7-79 alone are eligible to hold the posts of Village Accountants as well as eligible to be considered for promotion to the cadre of First Division clerks or First Grade Revenue Inspectors. ( 8 ) IT is, therefore, necessary to declare that the instructions contained in the afore-mentioned two letters of the Government dated 24th July, 1978 and 13th august, 1979 as illegal and further direct the Deputy Commissioners concerned not to reckon the prescribed period for passing the tests with effect from 20-1-1978. This would be sufficient relief to all the petitioners. Accordingly, a direction will issue to respondent-State as well as the concerned Deputy Commissioners. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. This would be sufficient relief to all the petitioners. Accordingly, a direction will issue to respondent-State as well as the concerned Deputy Commissioners. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .