JUDGMENT K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The petitioner's application for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector was rejected on the ground that he did not have the driving licence as on the last date for submitting the application, namely 30-8-95. The notification Ext.P1 requires driving licence to drive motor cycles for being considered for selection. In such circumstances rejection of the application cannot be said to be arbitrary. The petitioner contends that such insistence of the licence is contrary to the special rules relating to the Kerala Transport Subordinate Service, Ext.P8 Rules. The said special rules do not require such a driving licence. Therefore, insistence of the licence in Ext.P1 is arbitrary, the petitioner submits. In an earlier notification Ext.P9, such a licence was not insisted. 2. It is true that special rules do not provide, for possession of such licence for appointment of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector. The special rules are issued under S.2 of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1964. 3. Later, new Motor Vehicles Act has been promulgated as Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. S.213 of the said Act enables the Central Government to issue notification prescribing qualifications for Inspector of Motor Vehicles. An Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector also comes within the term Inspector of Motu: Vehicles. The qualification regarding licence is insisted in terms of the said statutory notification issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The special rules issued under the Public Services Act relate to the service aspect of the post concerned whereas the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a special law as compared to Public Service Act. 4. Similar issue was considered by a Division Bench of this court in connection with appointments in Weights and Measures Subordinate Service. There are special rules concerning the said service for appointment as Divisional Inspector by promotion. The special rules did not provide graduation as qualification. But, the rules framed under the Weights and Measures Act insisted that the candidates should have graduation preferably in Science. Same argument was advanced as in this case that insistence for graduation was contrary to the special rules. The special rules did not provide graduation as qualification. But, the rules framed under the Weights and Measures Act insisted that the candidates should have graduation preferably in Science. Same argument was advanced as in this case that insistence for graduation was contrary to the special rules. A Division Bench in the decision reported in Mohanan v. State of Kerala ( 1989 (1) KLT 161 ) held as follows: "It is necessary to point out that the Kerala Weights and Measures Subordinate Service Rules have been framed under sub-s.(1) of S.2 of the Public Services Act, 1968 which provides that the Government may make rules either prospectively or retrospectively to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to Public Services in connection with the affairs of the State of Kerala. Thus, the power conferred by sub-s.(1) of S.2 of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 is a general power of making rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to various public services in connection with the affairs of the State of Kerala. But so far as the Kerala Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1964 are concerned, they are framed under S.43(2)(b) of the Kerala Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act which empowers the government to frame rules prescribing qualifications, functions and duties generally of Inspectors under this Act. Thus we find that the power of prescribing qualifications in respect of the posts of Inspectors conferred by the Kerala Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act is a special power. The power conferred by sub-s.(1) of S.of the Kerala Public Services Act is a general power empowering the rule making authority to regulate recruitment to various services in the State. We have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that if there is conflict between two sets of rules, the Kerala Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1964 being special rules prevail over the Kerala Weights and Measures Subordinate Service Rules framed under the general provisions of sub-s.(1) of S.2 of the Kerala Public Services Act". 5. The qualification insisted by the Public Service Commission are those contained in the Statutory notification issued by the Central Government under S.213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which empowers them to prescribe qualification for Inspector of Motor Vehicle which includes the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors as well. 5. The qualification insisted by the Public Service Commission are those contained in the Statutory notification issued by the Central Government under S.213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which empowers them to prescribe qualification for Inspector of Motor Vehicle which includes the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors as well. Therefore, the notification prescribing the qualification under S.213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will prevail over the special rules. 6. Even otherwise, it cannot be stated that insistence of driving licence is violative of the special rules. The special rules only provide for minimum qualification required. That cannot be said to offend the special rules. 7. Considering the High Court Service rules which at the material time insisted only graduation for appointment as Assistant Grade II, when the notification insisted that applicants should have possessed first or second class in graduation, this court held in Pratapan v. Registrar, ( 1984 KLT 625 ) that insistence of first or second class was "narrowing the field of choice" and therefore did not offend the rules. Going by these authoritative pronouncements, insistence for driving licence cannot be said to be arbitrary. 8. Another Division Bench of this court in W.A.215/97 held that possession of motor driving licence is essential for considering the application for appointment to the said post pursuant to Ext. P1 notification. In the light of these authoritative pronouncements, the petitioner does not reveal any case for interference. O.P. fails. Dismissed. No costs.