JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - In September, 1981, a competitive test was held by the District Judge, Kanpur, for selecting suitable candidates for appointment to the vacancies in grade III of the Ministerial staff. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3961 of 981 could not qualify in written test and he was not called for interview. He filed Writ Petition in this Court challenging the examination held for recruitment to the Ministerial establishment of Kanpur Judgeship. Shailendra Kumar Awasthi and Ashok Kumar Yagik, petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10724 of 1983 were also unsuccessful at the examination. They also filed a writ petition challenging the examination and also for the issue of a mandamus directing the District Judge to cancel the examination. Ram Kishore Chatruvedi, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5073 of 1984, was successful at the examination, but he could not be appointed on account of the interim orders issued in the Writ Petition filed by Akhilesh Kumar Shukla. Heals approached this Court by means of writ petition for the issue of a writ mandamus directing the District Judge, Kanpur, to appoint him as a clerk as he' was successful at the examination. 2. On behalf of Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Shailendra Kumar Awasthi and others it was urged that the examinations were held in accordance with the syllabus prescribed by the Rules for Recruitment of Ministerial Staff to Subordinate Offices, 1950, although those rules were not in force on the date when the examination was held. Their further contention was that the examination should have been held in accordance with the syllabus prescribed by the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, as amended in 1969. On behalf of Ram Ki shore Chaturvedi the claim made on behalf of the other petitioners was disputed and it was urged that the examination was rightly held in accordance with the syllabus prescribed by the 1950 Roles, and those selected at the examination were entitled to be appointed in the Ministerial service. In order to determine the questions raised in these petitions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant rules. 3. Prior to the enforcement of the Constitution recruitment to the subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial establishment was regulated by the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, framed under Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Rules. 4. 3. Prior to the enforcement of the Constitution recruitment to the subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial establishment was regulated by the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, framed under Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Rules. 4. The 1947 Rules were applicable to the staff of Subordinate Civil Courts consisting of Ministerial Service. Rule 2 defined the expressions used in the Rules. Rule 3 prescribed the strength of Ministerial establishment. Rule 4 lays down requirement of nationality, domicile and residence for employment to any ministerial establishment under the Subordinate Courts. Rule 5 laid down academic qualifications. Rule 6 prescribed age. Rule 7 laid down that the candidate must possess a good moral character. Rule 8 related to physical fitness for appointment. Rule 9 prescribed method of recruitment. It laid down that early in each District Judge shall recruit as many candidates for his Judgeship as are required for the vacancies likely to occur in the course of tire year. Rule 10 required the District Judge to invite applications for recruitment in form A' as specified in Appendix by issuing advertisements in papers. Rule 11 laid down that recruitment shall be based on the results of competitive examination and an interview by the Distract Judge at the headquarters of the Judgeship. The examination and the interview were required to be held in accordance with Appendix II to the Rules. Rule 14 lays down that the names of candidates recruited shall be entered in order of merit in a bound register in Form B\ It further provided that if any candidate had not been given appointment within one year from the date of his recruitment, his name shall automatically be removed from the list of recruited candidates, thereafter he must take chance with other candidates in subsequent years. Rule 15 laid down that all appointments to the ministerial establishment were to be made by the District Judge from amongst the candidates recruited in accordance with Rule 11 in order of merit. Rule 17 laid down that first appointment to the ministerial establishment shall be on probation for a period of three months Rule Its contemplated confirmation on the expiry of probationary period. Rule 19 made provision for determining seniority from the date of the order of confirmation in a particular grade. Rule 20 regulated promotion to higher post in the Judgeship. Rule 17 laid down that first appointment to the ministerial establishment shall be on probation for a period of three months Rule Its contemplated confirmation on the expiry of probationary period. Rule 19 made provision for determining seniority from the date of the order of confirmation in a particular grade. Rule 20 regulated promotion to higher post in the Judgeship. Rule 21 prescribed rates of pay. Rule 24 related to regulation of other conditions of service. 5. For the purposes of these petitions it is necessary to consider Rule 11 and Appendix II. Rule 11 provided that that recruitment shall be based on the results of a competitive examination and interview'. The examination and the interview shall be held in the manner laid down in Appendix 11 which prescribed subjects for the written examination and also marks for written test and interview. Appendix II (Vide Rule 11) The examination shall be in three parts : (1) (2) (3) Compulsory subjects..........................350 marks Optional subjects ...............................50 marks Interview...........................................100 marks } Total 500 Compulsory subjects shall be - (a) Translation from English into Urdu (b) Translation from English into Hindi (c) Translation from Urdu into English Total 200 (d) Translation from Hindi into English (c) Precis Writing 50 (f) Dictation 100 Optional subjects - Shorthand and Typewriting 50 In the optional subjects no marks shall be awarded to any candidate who does not reach the minimum standard required in the note to Rule 14. 6. Any clerk who is already on the establishment and is not qualified as a stenographer may sit for the examination in typewriting and shorthand alone and will be eligible for appointment as stenographer if he qualifies." 7. The 1947 Rules regulated appointment to the ministerial establishment of the Civil Courts in the United Provinces subordinate to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow and the conditions of service of the persons so appointed. The rules not only prescribed the method and manner of recruitment but also they contained provisions regulating the conditions of service of persons appointed to the ministerial establishment of the Civil Courts. In view of Articles 313 and 372 of the Constitution, these rules continued to be in force after the Constitution was enforced. 8. The rules not only prescribed the method and manner of recruitment but also they contained provisions regulating the conditions of service of persons appointed to the ministerial establishment of the Civil Courts. In view of Articles 313 and 372 of the Constitution, these rules continued to be in force after the Constitution was enforced. 8. On July 11, 1950, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued a Notification making rules for recruitment to the ministerial establishment of subordinate offices under his control in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 509 of the Constitution of India. These rules were known as "Rules for the Recruitment of Ministerial Staff to the Subordinate Offices" (hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Rules). The expression "Subordinate Offices" as defined by Rule 2, included all offices under the control of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, other than those of the Secretariat, the State Legislature, the High Court, and the Public Service Commission, According to the definition the rules were applicable to all the subordinate offices which were under the control of the Governor except the offices of the Civil Secretariat, the State Legislature, the High Court and the Public Service Commission. Thus the 1950 Rules become applicable to the Ministerial establishment of Subordinate Civil Courts. Rules 3 laid down that recruitment to the lowest grade of the ministerial staff in a subordinate office shall be made on the basis of a competitive test. Rule 5 provided that the competitive tests shall be held at least once a year at the time specified in the Schedule by each head of subordinate office for posts, not requiring technical knowledge, the schedule referred in Rule 5 contains an express entry "Offices of Subordinate Civil Courts" and it, further, prescribed "second week of August" for holding test. Rule 6 provided that the competitive tests shall comprise a written test as well as an oral test. It further prescribed the subjects of the tests and the maximum marks on each subjects in the following manner Subjects Marks ORAL (i) Personality 25 (ii) General Knowledge and suitability for the particular post 25 WRITTEN (i) Simple drafting 50 (ii) Essay and Precis writing 50 (iii) Hindi 50 OPTIONAL (i) Typewriting and Shorthand 50 (ii) English 50 Note. - A candidate must take one of the two optional subjects and may take both. - A candidate must take one of the two optional subjects and may take both. Rule 7 laid down that on the results of the test, the head of the subordinate office shall select a number of candidates sufficient to fill the number of vacancies as ascertained under Rule 3 and offer to them appointments as and when the vacancies occur, according to the order of merit. Sub-rule (2) further provided that no one who has not been selected in accordance with sub-rule (1) shall be appointed to any vacancy unless the list of selected candidates is exhausted. Sub-rule (3) made provisions for appointment to casual vacancies. Rule 8 laid down that appointments to higher posts shall continue to be made by promotion. 9. A comparison of the syllabus prescribed by 1950 Rules with that of the 1947 Rules, Appendix II, would show that the subjects of examination as well as the marks allotted for the subjects are inconsistent. The two cannot stand together. The 1947 Rules were comprehensive in nature making provision in respect to a variety of matters regulating conditions of service of ministerial employees in Subordinate Courts, but the 1950 Rules merely sought to prescribe a different syllabus for examination. Rule 8 of the 1950 Rules merely lays down that appointment to higher post shall continue to be made by promotion. Rule 20 of the 1947 Rules also contained similar provision for promotion to higher post from amongst the members of the Ministerial Service. The only change which was brought about by 1950 Rules related to the syllabus for holding the examination. 10. By a notification dated September 20, 1960, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh made amendments to the 1947 Rules. These Rules called "the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment (Amendment) Rules, 1969" (hereinafter referred to as' the 1969 Rules). By these Rules amendments were made to Rule 5 and to Appendix II Rule 5 of 1947 Rules prescribed High School Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, as the minimum qualification Rule 5 after its amendment by 1968 Rules laid down that no person who is not already on the staff attached to Subordinate Civil Court be appointed to a post in the ministerial establishment unless he has passed at least the Intermediate Examination. Rule 3 of the Amending Rules of 1969 Rules laid down that Appendix II of 1947 Rules which laid down the subject of examination and the manner of selection shall stand amended. The amended Appendix II is as under The examination shall be in three parts : - Marks (1) (2) (3) Compulsory subjects Optional subjects Interview 350 50 100 } Total 500 Compulsory subjects shall be :- (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Translation from English into Hindi Translation from Hindi into English Hindi drafting Hindi Precis writing English Drafting Dictation 50 50 50 50 50 100 Optional subjects : - Shorthand and Typewriting 50 In the optional subject no marks shall be awarded to any candidate who does not reach the minimum standard required in the note to Rule 14. 11. Any clerk who is already on the establishment and is not qualified as a stenographer may sit for the examination in the typewriting and short-hand alone and will be eligible for appointment as stenographer if he qualifies. 12. A resume of the relevant rules as noted above would show that the 1947 Rules are special in nature which make comprehensive provision for regulating the method of recruitment to the Ministerial establishment of the Subordinate Courts and also for regulating the conditions of service. The 1950 Rules were limited in scope. These Rules made drastic changes in the subjects of tests. Under 1947 Rules, Appendix II contained different subjects and different marks than those prescribed by Rule 6 of 19:0 Rules. Rule 6 of 1950 Rules was inconsistent and repugnant to Appendix II of 1947 Rules. 1950 Rules did not contain any specific provision for the repeal of 1947 Rules but the notification dated July 11, 1950, clearly mentioned that the Governor had framed the Rules in supersession of all existing rules and orders on the subject for recruitment to the Ministerial establishment of subordinate offices under his control. The schedule to the Rules indicated that offices of Civil Courts were included in the definition of Subordinate offices. Since the syllabus prescribed for the holding of the competitive tests for recruitment of the ministerial establishment of subordinate offices as prescribed by 1950 Rules was inconsistent and repugnant to the syllabus contained in Appendix II of 1947 Rules, the 1950 Rules were to prevail being later rules framed on the subject. Since the syllabus prescribed for the holding of the competitive tests for recruitment of the ministerial establishment of subordinate offices as prescribed by 1950 Rules was inconsistent and repugnant to the syllabus contained in Appendix II of 1947 Rules, the 1950 Rules were to prevail being later rules framed on the subject. Although 1959 Rules did not make any reference to 1947 Rules but the notification clearly indicated that the 1947 Rules were made in supersession of all existing Rules on the subject. Therefore, it follows that the 1950 Rules being later in time superseded 1947 Rules to the extent of its inconsistency. After the enforcement of 1950 Rules competitive tests for holding selection for appointment to the Ministerial establishment of subordinate courts was required to be held in accordance with the syllabus of 1950 Rules and not in accordance with Appendix II of 1947 Rules. In other respects the 1947 Rules continued to be effective. 13. The question, however, arises what was the effect of Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment (Amendment) Rules, 1969. As noted earlier, the Rules of 1969 were framed by the Governor, amending Appendix 11 of 1947 Rules. The notification dated September 20, 1969, under which the Rules were enforced, does not contain any reference to 1950 Rules. It appears that while amending the 1947 Rules, the Governor failed to notice that Appendix II of 194/ Rules had already been superseded by Rule 6 of 1950 Rules. However, it is evident that the intention was to prescribe different syllabus than that prescribed by 1950 Rules. There is no doubt that by the 1969 Rules, the Governor intended to lay down a syllabus for holding competitive examination for selection and appointment to the ministerial establishment of subordinate courts which was quite different to the syllabus prescribed by Rule 6 of 1950 Rules as well as Appendex II of 1947 Rules. The 1969 Rules were also framed by the Governor in respect of the same subject-matter as laid down by Rule 5 of 1950 Rules. Since 1969 Rules were framed later in time by the same an authority on the same subject, it must be held that the syllabus prescribed by the Amending Rules superseded the earlier rules on the subject. 14. Learned counsel for Ram Kishore Chaturvedi urged that since 1947 Rules stood repealed by 1950 Rules, the Amending Rules of 1969 were in effective. 14. Learned counsel for Ram Kishore Chaturvedi urged that since 1947 Rules stood repealed by 1950 Rules, the Amending Rules of 1969 were in effective. He placed reliance on the principles laid down in Amirun-Nisha Begum v. Mahboob Begum, AIR 1955 SC 352 where it was held that the repeal of a repealing enactment would not revive the original Act unless the second repealing enactment manifests an intention to the contrary. As said earlier, the 1950 Rules were of limited scope and confined to laying down a different syllabus while the 1947 Rules made elaborate provision laying down the method and manner of recruitment and other conditions of service. The 19 0 Rules did not repeal the 1947 Rules in its entirety. However, as the 1950 Rules covered by Appendix 11 of 1947 Rules, the former being later in time superseded the earlier provision and became effective. Consequently, the examination for recruitment to Ministerial service in the subordinate courts after the enforcement of 1950 Rules was regulated by the syllabus prescribed by 1950 Rules. The Rules of 1969 also relate to syllabus and manifest an intention to the contrary. The 1969 Rules being later in time on the same subject as the 1950 Rules superseded the 1950 Rules. Consequently, the 1969 Rules hold the field and the examination should have been held in accordance with the syllabus prescribed by 1969 Rules. 15. There is yet another reason for rejecting the contention that the syllabus as prescribed by 1950 Rules was in force in 1981. The Governor in exercise of his powers under Article 309 of the Constitution framed the U. P. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Stair (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975. Rule 20 of these Rules laid down that rules for recruitment of Ministerial stall' in the subordinate offices published under notification dated July 11, 1950, shall be and be deemed to have been repealed with effect from June 5, 1974. The 1950 Rules were thus expressly repealed by 1975 Rules and the provisions of those rules ceased to be in force with effect from June 5, 1974. No examination could, therefore, be legally held in accordance with the syllabus prescribed by 1950 Rules for recruitment to the Ministerial staff in subordinate offices. On the date the examination in question was held the 1950 Rules were not in force. No examination could, therefore, be legally held in accordance with the syllabus prescribed by 1950 Rules for recruitment to the Ministerial staff in subordinate offices. On the date the examination in question was held the 1950 Rules were not in force. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Judge, it is conceded that the examinations were held in accordance with the syllabus prescribed by 1950 Rules. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the examination was wrongly held in the subjects prescribed by 19M) Rules. 16. The 1969 Rules, no doubt, purported to amend Rule 5 and Appendix II of 1947 Rules. The language of the Rules of 1569 indicates that apart from the rubs being in the nature of amendment, the Governor intended to Jay down specific rules prescribed educational qualifications and syllabus for holding the examination for recruitment to the ministerial staff of the Subordinate Courts. Even if the 19o9 Rules could not be effective during the period the 1950 Rules were enforce, the same would be fully effective after June 5, 1974, on the repeal of 1950 Rules. We, therefore, hold that in any event after June 5, 1974, recruitment to the ministerial stall of the Subordinate Courts could be held only in accordance with 1947 Rules read with 1969 Rules and not in accordance with 1950 Rules. 17. Since in the Judgeship of Kanpur the examination was not held in accordance with the syllabus prescribed by 1947 Rules read with 1969 Rules, all those who were successful and selected for appointment have no legal right to be / appointed. The examination of 1981 was held against the rules and it is accordingly liable to be quashed. 18. In the result, we allow Petitions No. 3961 of 1982 and 10024 of 1983 and dismiss Petition No. 5073 of 1984. We quash the competitive examination held by the District Judge, Kanpur, in September, 1951 and of which the result was declared on 25th July, 1983. We direct the District Judge to hold fresh examination in accordance with the rules keeping in mind the observations made above. We would like to make it clear that all the candidates who had applied for 1981 examination, will be entitled to appear at the fresh examination on the basis of the applications already made by them. Parties shall bear their own costs. 19. Before we part with the cases. We would like to make it clear that all the candidates who had applied for 1981 examination, will be entitled to appear at the fresh examination on the basis of the applications already made by them. Parties shall bear their own costs. 19. Before we part with the cases. We, would like to observe that where selection for appointment to Ministerial Staff in a judgeship has been held in accordance with the 1950 Rules and the same has not been challenged as yet, the selection and appointment made in pursuance thereof will be treated valid and the same will not be rendered invalid as any other view will cause great hardship and create confusion which will not be in public interest. In future the examination shall be held in accordance with the 1947 Rules as amended by 1969 Rules.