N. N. Nivani v. State of Karnataka — 1986 DIGILAW 307 (KAR)

ORDER K.A. Swami, J.—In all these petitions except in Writ Petition No. 6515 of 1984 and W.P. 10332/86, the petitioners apart from seeking issue of a Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto directing the 3rd respondent-Sri V. Surya Prakash, State Librarian, to vacate the office of the State Librarian and also to quash the orders of transfers made by him transferring the petitioners. 2. In Writ Petition 10332/86, the petitioner has only sought for quashing the order of transfer passed by Sri V. Suryaprakash transferring the petitioner. As far as W.P. 6515/84 is concerned, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs : "(i) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent not to appoint the 2nd Respondent as State Librarian (Pay Scale 1320-2250). (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first Respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of State Librarian (Pay Scale Rs. 1320-2250) in accordance with the Karnataka State Library Service (Recruitment Rules) 1970 as amended by the Karnataka Public Libraries (Amendment) Act, 1976, and appoint him to the said post giving him all consequential benefits to which he is legally entitled to as a consequence of his appointment to the post of State Librarian. (iii) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as the case may be including the award of costs. iii (a). Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Notification No. DPAR 263 SHD 83 dt. 9-4-1984 (Annexure-B)." Added by way of amendment. 3. Having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioners and also the submissions made on behalf of the State and the other respondents, and learned Counsel Shri S.K. Venkataranga Iyengar on behalf of Shri V. Surya Prakash, the following points arise for consideration : (1) Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Karnataka Public Libraries Act, 1965, whether the post of Director of Public Libraries (formerly known at State Librarian) can be filled by deputation by the State Government in exercise of the power under Rule 16 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 ? (2) Whether the Notification dated 9-4-1984 (Annexure-B) bearing No. DPAR 263 SHD 83 issued by the State Government appointing Sri V. Surya Prakash as State Librarian, now known as Director of Public Libraries, on deputation is valid in law ? (3) Whether the orders of transfer passed by Sri V. Surya Prakash are liable to be quashed ? 4. POINT NO. (1): The case of the petitioners is that the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, hold good as long as no LAW covering the subject covered by such rules is passed by the Legislature ; that the Legislature while enacting the Karnataka Public Libraries Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has specifically provided under Section 15 that all posts in the Department of Public Libraries, the State Central Library and every local Library Authority shall be by appointment of persons belonging to the Karnataka State Library Service ; that as the Director of Public Libraries (formerly known as State Librarian) is one of the posts belonging to the Karnataka State Library Service, it is not permissible for the State Government to fill up that post in exercise of its power under Rule 16 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the "General Recruitment Rules"); that the decision of this Court in Thammaiah v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 1983 (1) KLJ 305, cannot be held to govern the case covered by Statute : therefore having regard to substantive provision of law contained in Section 15 of the Act, the decision in in Thammiah's case is not applicable. 5. On the contrary, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that even as per Section 15(2) of the Act, the posts relating to the Karnataka State Library Service including that of the Director of Public Libraries are required to be filled in accordance with the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution ; that as the General Recruitment Rules are also framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, the State Government is entitled to exercise its power under Rule 16 of the General Recruitment Rules and fill up the post of Director of Public Libraries by way of deputation. It is further submitted that Sub-section (2) of Section 15 controls Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act ; that as per Section 15(2) of the Act, Karnataka State Library Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the "Recruitment-Rules") are framed wilder Article 309 of the Constitution; that Recruitment Rubs read with Rule 13 of the Rules known as Karnataka Public Libraries Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "1966 Rules"), in the absence of availability of suitable officer for appointment as Director of Public Libraries by promotion, it is open to the State Government to exercise the power under Rule 16 of the General Recruitment Rules and fill the post by deputation ; that the decisions in Thammaiah's case is followed by the State in filling up the post by way of deputation ; that the orders of transfer passed by Sri V. Surya Prakash are valid in law inasmuch as the deputation of Sri V. Surya Prakash is continued till the and of this month by the Government Order dated 25-7-1986, bearing No. DPR. 109 SHD 86. 6.1) As far as the position of the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to such services and posts is concerned it is not necessary to discuss it elaborately, inasmuch as the matter is no more res-integra. The Supreme Court in B.S. Vadera Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1969 SC 118 , has with reference to the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution held as follows : "24. It ia also significant to note that the proviso to Article 309, clearly lays down that 'any rubs so made shall have effect, subject to the provisions of any such Act'. The clear and unambiguous expressions, used in the Constitution, must be given their full and unrestricted meaning unless hedged in, by any limitations. The rules, which have to be 'subject to the provisions of the Constitution', shall have effect, 'subject to the provisions of any such Act'. The clear and unambiguous expressions, used in the Constitution, must be given their full and unrestricted meaning unless hedged in, by any limitations. The rules, which have to be 'subject to the provisions of the Constitution', shall have effect, 'subject to the provisions of any such Act'. That is, if the appropriate Legislature has passed an Act, under Article 309, the rules, framed under the proviso will have effect, subject to that Act ; but, in the absence of any Act of the appropriate Legislature, on the matter, in our opinion, the rules, made by the President or by such person as he may direct, are to have full effect both prospectively and retrospectively. Apart from the limitations, pointed out above, there is none other imposed by the proviso to Article 309, regarding the ambit of the operation of such rules. In other words, the rules, unless they can be impeached on grounds such as breach of Part III, or any other Constitutional provision, must be enforced, if made by the appropriate authority. 25. In the cage before us, the Indian Railway Establishment Code has been issued by the President in the exercise of his powers under the proviso to Article 309. Under Rule 157, the President has directed the Railway Board, to make rules of general application to non gazette railway servants under their control. The rules which are embodied in the schemes framed by the Board, under Annexures 4 and 7, are within the powers conferred under Rule 157 and in the absence of any Act, having been passed by the 'appropriate' Legislature on the said matter, the rules framed by the Railway Board will have full effect and, if so indicated retrospective effect as has already been pointed out by us, is clearly there in the impugned provisions." 6.2) Thus, the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Act, passed by the appropriate Legislature regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service. But, in the absence of such law passed by the appropriate legislature, the rules will have full effect both prospectively and retrospectively as may be provided therein. But, in the absence of such law passed by the appropriate legislature, the rules will have full effect both prospectively and retrospectively as may be provided therein. 6.3) In the instant case, Section 12 of the Act, directs that for the purposes of the Act, a Department of Public Libraries shall be constituted with a Director of Public Libraries as its head and such other officers and servants as the Government may by order specify. Section 14(1) of the Act, provides that a whole-time officer having the prescribed qualifications to practice the Library profession shall be appointed by the State Government as the Director of Public Libraries. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 deals with the functions of the Director of Public Libraries. It is not necessary to refer to them in this case. Section 15 of the Act, on which the petitioners have based their reliefs will be referred to a little later. However, at this stage, it is appropriate to refer to Rule 13 of the 1966 Rules framed under the Act, which is as follows : "13. Qualifications of the State Librarian.--A person to be appointed as State Librarian under Sub-section (1) a Bachelor's Degree of a University established by law in India, (2) a degree or diploma in Library Science of a University established by law in India secured after not leas than one academic year's course, (3) not less than ten years of working experience in a Library recognised by Government, (4) not less than 40 years of age and (5) a pass in the following departmental examinations, namely :- 1. Kannada Language Test 2. General Law Fart I and II 3. Kannada Language Test 2. General Law Fart I and II 3. Accounts Higher : Provided that in the case of a person appointed by direct recruitment he shall pass the aforesaid departmental examinations during the period of probation." Section 41(3) of the Act, provides thus : "Every rule made under this Act shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be kid before each House of the State Legislature while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more sessions and if before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or the sessions immediately following, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be ; so however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule." The effect of Sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the Act, is to make the rules framed under the Act, as part of the Act. Thus, Rule 13 of the 1966 Rules framed under Section 41 of the Act, has to be read as part and parcel of the Act. 6.4) Section 15(1) of the Act, opens with the words : "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law," all posts in the Department of Public Libraries, the State Central Library and every Local Library Authority shall be filled by appointment of persons belonging to the Karnataka State Library Service. Sub-section (2) thereof, further provides that the Karnataka State Library Service shall consist of the Director of Public Libraries, Chief Librarian of Cities and Districts, Librarians and such other classes and categories of the posts as the State Government may from time to time determine. It further provides that all members of the Karnataka State Library Service shall be Government servants, and their recruitment and the conditions of service shall, subject to the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution, be regulated by such rules as may be prescribed. Sub-section (3) thereof need not at this stage be referred to. It further provides that all members of the Karnataka State Library Service shall be Government servants, and their recruitment and the conditions of service shall, subject to the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution, be regulated by such rules as may be prescribed. Sub-section (3) thereof need not at this stage be referred to. 6.5) The contention of Sri S.V. Narasimhan, learned Government Pleader, is that Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, controls Sub-section (1); consequently it enables the State Government to exercise its power under Rule 16 of the General Recruitment Rules. On the contrary, it is the case of the petitioners that Sub-section (1) specifically directs that all posts in the Department of Public Libraries shall be filled by appointment of persons belonging to the Karnataka State Library Service; therefore, it is not open to the State Government to exercise its power under Rule 16 of the General Recruitment Rules. In other words, the case of the petitioners is that as to how the posts in the Department of Public Libraries are to be filled up is provided by the Act made by the Legislature, the application of, or exercise of the power under, Rule 16 of the General Recruitment Rules stands excluded. In this connection, it is the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that it becomes occupied field. 6.6) As held by the Supreme Court in Vadera's case, the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are subject to the law made by the appropriate State Legislature relating to the recruitment and the conditions of the service. Therefore, Rule 16 of the General Recruitment Rules, which covers the same topic cannot over-ride the provisions contained in the Act, as it is required to be read subject to the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. Therefore, the contention based on the theory of occupied field, is wholly irrelevant under the circumstances of the case. Hence, it is not necessary to refer in detail the decision of the Kerala High Court relied upon by Sri S.V. Narasimhan, learned High Court Government Pleader, on the theory of 'occupied field', reported in 1984 (1) SLR 501 Director of Postal Services v. K.R. B. Kaimal and Anr. 6.7) The contention of Learned Government Pleader that Sub-section (2) controls Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, cannot also be accepted. 6.7) The contention of Learned Government Pleader that Sub-section (2) controls Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, cannot also be accepted. Sub-sections (1) to (3) have [to be read together. The entire section relates to one topic i e., State Library Service, Sub-section (1) provides as to how the posts in Karnataka State Library service are to be filled. Sub-section (2) provides as to the contents and constitution of such service. Sub-section (3) provides that the salary, allowances, gratuity, pension and other benefits of members of the Karnataka State Library Service shall be met from the Consolidated Fund of the State. Thus, the entire Section 15 of the Act deals with one topic, and has to be read as a whole. If there are no rules framed under the Act, governing the recruitment and the conditions of service, rules framed in this regard under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, will hold the field to the extent such rules are not inconsistent with the provisions contained in Section 15 and other relevant provisions of the Act. In the instant case, there are no rules framed for recruitment of personnel to the Karnataka State Library Service except Rule 13 of the 1966 Rules, which only prescribes the qualifications for the post of Director of Public Libraries. There is no other provision contained in the 1966 Rules framed under the Act relating to the recruitment and the conditions of service. Therefore, the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, known as Karnataka State Library Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the "Recruitment Rules") as amended from time to time in so far they are in conformity with and not inconsistent with the provisions contained in Sections 14 and 15 of the Act, read with Rule 13 of the 1966 Rules, govern the filling up of any of the posts in the Karnataka State Library Service. The Recruitment Rules also provide for filling up of the post of Director of Public Libraries. 6.8) At this stage itself it is necessary to notice the relevant Recruitment Rules and Rule 13 of the Rules : Recruitment Rules Rule 13 of the 1956 Rules 2. The Recruitment Rules also provide for filling up of the post of Director of Public Libraries. 6.8) At this stage itself it is necessary to notice the relevant Recruitment Rules and Rule 13 of the Rules : Recruitment Rules Rule 13 of the 1956 Rules 2. Method of recruitment: In respect of each category of posts specified in column (i) of the schedule, the method of recruitment and the minimum qualification and the period of probation if any, shall be as specified in the corresponding entries in columns 2 and 3 thereof. 13. Qualifications of the State Librarian.- A person to be appointed as State Librarian under sub-section (1) a Bachelor's Degree of a University established by law in India, (2) a degree or diploma in Lib. Science of a University established by law in India secured after not less than one academic year's course, (3) not less than ten years of working experience in a Library recognised by Government, (4) not less than 40 years of age and (5) a pass in the following departmental examinations, namely :- SCHEDULE Category of posts. Method of recruitment Minimum qualification Bad period of probation. CLASS I POST. 1. Kannade Language Test 2. General Law-Part I & II 3. Accounts Higher : Provided that in the case of a person appointed by direct recruitment be shallpass the aforesaid departmental examination during the period of probation. State Librarian. i) By appointment of the person holding the post of Curator of Libraries immediately before the establishment of State Central Library.1a) If the person holding the post of Curator referred to in item 1 is not suitable for appointment by promotion (by selection from the cadre of Chief Librarians and Deputy Librarian) and For appointment under item 1 of column 2 for promotion and for Direct Recruitment.Should be a holder of.(1) Bachelor's degree of a University established by law in India.(2) a Degree or Dip. in Library Sc. of a University established by Law in India secured after not less than One academic years course.(3) Not less than ten years working experience in a Library recognised by Govt. (4) Not less than 40 years of age. ii) If no suitable officer is available for appointment by promotion by direct recruitment. 6.9) The qualifications prescribed for the posts are in conformity with the qualifications prescribed by Rule 13 of the 1966 Rules. (4) Not less than 40 years of age. ii) If no suitable officer is available for appointment by promotion by direct recruitment. 6.9) The qualifications prescribed for the posts are in conformity with the qualifications prescribed by Rule 13 of the 1966 Rules. As far as the method f recruitment is Concerned, the following portions in the Recruitment Rules are not in conformity with Section 15(1) of the Act: "i. By appointment of the person holding the post of Curator of Libraries immediately before the establishment of State Central Library. i(a) If the person holding the post of Curator referred to in item i, is not suitable for appointment..." In this regard, it is also very pertinent to notice that the Recruitment Rules as made for the first time in the year 1970 only provided for filling the post of State Librarian (Now, the Director of Public Libraries) as follows : "i) By promotion by selection from the cadre of Chief Librarians and Deputy Librarian : and ii) if no suitable officer is available for appointment by promotion, by direct recruitment." It is only by the notification dated 17th January, 1976 bearing No. ED 416 DGO 70 published in the Official Gazette of 27th January, 1976, the method of recruitment has been changed by inserting the above referred Clauses (i) and (ia). In this regard, it is submitted by Sri S.V. Narasimhan, learned Government Pleader, that as the recruitment and the conditions of service in question, in the absence of the Rules framed under the Act, are governed by the Recruitment Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution therefore, there is nothing illegal in the Recruitment Rules providing for appointment of the person holding the post of Curator of Libraries before the establishment of State Central Library as Director of Public Libraries. The contention is not correct. Such a provision in the Recruitment Rules is opposed to Sub-section 1 of Section 15 of the Act. It is already pointed out that the Recruitment Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act, passed by the appropriate Legislature. As per Section 15(1) of the Act, all posts in the Department of Public Libraries shall be filled by persons belonging to the Karnataka State Library Service, which does not include the post of Curator. As per Section 15(1) of the Act, all posts in the Department of Public Libraries shall be filled by persons belonging to the Karnataka State Library Service, which does not include the post of Curator. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that in so far the Recruitment Rules provide for appointment of person holding the post of Curator as Director of Public Libraries, are in conformity with Section 15(1) and (2) of the Act. Consequently, the words "For appointment under item (i) of Column 2", occurring in Column 3 of the Schedule to Recruitment Rules, shall also have to be struck down along with Clause (i) and a portion in Clause (ia) in column No. 2 of the Schedule referred to above. 6.10) The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether in a case like this, the power under Rule 16 of the General Recruitment Rules, is available and can be exercised. No doubt, Rule 16 of the General Recruitment Rules is framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. As such, General Recruitment Rules also, shall have effect subject to the law made by the appropriate Legislature on such subject. Rule 16 of the General Recruitment Rules provides for filling up of the posts under the State by way of deputation on satisfying the conditions mentioned therein. When the law made by the Legislature provides that particular posts are to be filled up in a particular manner and that law does not either permit or provide for filling the posts on deputation even by necessary implication, the power under Rule 16 of the General Recruitment Rules cannot be exercised for filling such posts. Therefore, the posts relating to Karnataka State Library Service cannot be filled by way of depuration; as long as the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act, continue to remain in force as they are to-day. 6.11) For the reasons stated above, Point No. 1 is answered as follows: "As long as Section 15 of the Act stands as it is to-day, it is not permissible for the State to exercise power under Rule 16 of the General Recruitment Rules to fill up the posts relating to Karnataka State Library Service including the post of the Director of Public Libraries". 7. Before considering Point No. 2, it is necessary to consider the decision in Thammaiah's case. 7. Before considering Point No. 2, it is necessary to consider the decision in Thammaiah's case. It is rendered without noticing Section 15 of the Act, In that decision, the attention of the Court was not drawn to Section 15 of the Act. The scope and ambit of Section 15 of the Act, was not considered. In fact, the Act itself was not referred to by both the sides. The arguments centered upon the question whether the order of deputation was in accordance with Rule 16 of the General Recruitment Rules. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Court to consider the scope and the effect of Section 15 of the Act. When a decision is rendered without noticing particular provision of law having a bearing on the point decided, it cannot be considered to be a valid and binding precedent on the point so decided. At any rate, the decision in Thammaiah's case is not an authority or a precedent on the question regarding the scope and effect of Section 15 of the Act and the affect of it on the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, as these points are not considered therein. Therefore, having regard to the finding recorded on Point No. 1, the decision in Thammaiah's case cannot be held to govern the case when the law passed by the appropriate Legislature provides for filling particular posts in a particular manner and thereby excluding the mode of filling up of the posts by deputation. 8. POINT NO. 2: The next question for consideration is whether the order passed by the State appointing Sri V. Surya Prakash as State Librarian/Director of Public Libraries pa deputation is valid in law. No doubt, the decision in Thammaiah's case having regard to the finding recorded on Point No. 1, cannot be held to govern the case. However, until it is declared so, the State Government was bound by it. Therefore, it is the case of the State Government that it has bona fide acted on the basis of the decision in Thammaiah's case and has filled the post of Director of Public Libraries by appointing Sri V. Surya Prakash on deputation. The stand so taken cannot at all be held to be either as unreasonable or illegal. Therefore, it is the case of the State Government that it has bona fide acted on the basis of the decision in Thammaiah's case and has filled the post of Director of Public Libraries by appointing Sri V. Surya Prakash on deputation. The stand so taken cannot at all be held to be either as unreasonable or illegal. It cannot also be held to be arbitrary as the State Government has acted on the basis of a decision of this Court in Thammaiah's case as the State Government was bound by that decision. That bring so, it is not just and appropriate to quash the impugned Notification dated 9-4-1984 (Annexure-B) appointing Sri V. Surya Prakash, as Director of Public Libraries on deputation, even though as per the finding recorded on Point No. 1 the post of Director of Public Libraries cannot be filled by deputation because, as it is pointed out above, the impugned notification is issued on the basis of the decision of this Court in Thammaiah's case. Point No. 2 is answered accordingly. 9. At this stage, it is necessary to place on record as to how the Notification dated 25-7-1985 bearing No. DPAR 109 HSD 86 came to be issued by the State Government extending the period of deputation of Sri V. Surya Prakash from 9-4-1986 to 31-7-1986. When these petitions were being heard, it was noticed that the period of deputation of Sri Surya Prakash as Director of Public Libraries had expired on 8-4-1986 and nevertheless, he had been allowed to discharge the duties and perform the functions of the office of the Director of Public Libraries. Therefore, in order to avoid the State being drawn into several litigations challenging the validity of the actions of Sri V. Surya Prakash relating to the period subsequent to 8-4-1986, it was considered just and necessary in public interest to permit the State Government to pass an order extending the period of deputation of Sri V. Surya Prakash till the end of July, 1986. Accordingly, the State Government was permitted to do so and the further hearing of the petitions came to be adjourned to today. Pursuant to it, the State Government has issued the aforesaid Notification dated 25-7-1986. 10. Certain allegations of mala fides are made against the Chief Secretary of the State. Accordingly, the State Government was permitted to do so and the further hearing of the petitions came to be adjourned to today. Pursuant to it, the State Government has issued the aforesaid Notification dated 25-7-1986. 10. Certain allegations of mala fides are made against the Chief Secretary of the State. But, during the course of hearing, the petitioners have fairly stated that they do not pursue the same and the same may be deemed to have been given up. This submission is placed on record. In view of this, it is not necessary to enquire into the allegations of mala fides. 11. Having regard to the fact that the deputation of Sri V. Surya Prakash expires on the 31st of this month and in view of the finding recorded by me on Point No. 2, no Writ of Quo Warranto need be issued to Sri V. Surya Prakash to vacate the office of the Director of Public Libraries as under the Notification dated 25-7-1986 he has to vacate the office by the end of this month. 12.1) The petitioners have sought for quashing the orders of transfer on the ground that Sri V. Surya Prakash ceased so be the State Librarian from 9-4-1986, whereas he his passed the orders of transfer in the month of May 1986 ; therefore, the orders of transfer are without the authority of law. If only there would not have been any extension of the period of deputation of Sri V. Surya Prakash by the Notification dated 25 7 1986, the contention would have been unexceptionable and would have accepted without any difficulty ; but as it is already pointed out, the deputation of Sri V. Surya Prakash has been continued up to 31-7-1986. Thus, he must be held to have been on deputation even after 8-4-1986 inasmuch as the Notification dated 25-7-1985 has got to be read as though it was in existence on 9-4-1986. That being so, it is not possible to hold that the impugned orders of transfer are passed without the authority of law. 12.2) Regarding the transfer of Sri F.B. Salmantpi, Learned Government Pleader submits that his transfer is premature and the same will not be given effect to. Regarding the transfer of other petitioners, it is stated that S.A. Patil and Badige are staying at Bijapur since 1979. That being so, their transfer is justified. 12.2) Regarding the transfer of Sri F.B. Salmantpi, Learned Government Pleader submits that his transfer is premature and the same will not be given effect to. Regarding the transfer of other petitioners, it is stated that S.A. Patil and Badige are staying at Bijapur since 1979. That being so, their transfer is justified. Regarding Sri Beemanna, it is submitted that he has been serving at Dharwad since 5-8-1982 for over a period of three years; therefore, his transfer is justified and it must be deemed to have been effected in the normal course. That being so, the transfer of Sri Beemanna cannot be held to be improper or illegal. 13. Lastly, learned Government Pleader submits that as the Court has not accepted the stand of the State Government and as such it is now necessary for the State Government to fill up the post of Director of Public Libraries (formerly known as State Librarian), only from among the persons belonging to Karnataka State Library Service, and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1966 Rules, and the Recruitment Rules, and as it takes considerable time, the State Government may be permitted to make an incharge arrangement for a period of three months. In view of the finding recorded on Point No. 1, the State Government has to fill up the post of Director of Public Libraries only in the manner pointed out above. There is no doubt that it requires sometime. Hence, it is just and proper to grant six weeks time from 1-8-1986 to the State Government to make incharge arrangement. 14. For the reasons stated above, these Writ Petitions are disposed of in the following terms: (i) As long as Section 15 of the Act, stands as it it to-day, the State Government has to fill up the post of Director of Public Libraries (formerly known as State Librarian) only from among the officials borne on the Karnataka State Library Service ; in accordance with the 1966 Rules, and Recruitment Rules now in force; and not by way of deputation. (ii) The following portions occurring in the Recruitment Rules are struck down as being opposed to Section 15 of the Act : "(i) By appointment of the person holding the post of Curator of Libraries immediately before the establishment of State Central Library. (ii) The following portions occurring in the Recruitment Rules are struck down as being opposed to Section 15 of the Act : "(i) By appointment of the person holding the post of Curator of Libraries immediately before the establishment of State Central Library. (ia) If the person folding the post of Curator referred to in item i is not suitable for appointment....." (iii) The State is permitted to make incharge arrangement for a period of six weeks from 1-8-1986 to enable it to fill up the post of Director of Public Libraries (formerly known as State Librarian) in accordance with the directions contained in this order. (iv) The submission of Learned Government Pleader that the transfer of Sri F.B. Salmantapi-petitioner in W. P. 10332/86 will not be given effect to, is placed on record; consequently it is not necessary to quash the order of transfer. (v) Writ Petitions 9589, 9870 and 9871 of 1986 are dismissed.