Judgment :- PASAYAT, C.J. Heard. Challenge in this Writ Appeal is to the judgment of learned single Judge holding that appellant did not possess the requisite qualification. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows : Appellant was an applicant for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. His application was field in response to the notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (in short 'the Commission'). One of the requisite qualifications was work experience for one year in an approved workshop. The period was to be reckoned after acquisition of the basic qualification, viz. diploma in Automobile/Mechanical Engineering. Experience certificate produced by appellant was to the effect that he had gained working experience between the period of from 1-5-1993 to 11-5-1994. Same was not accepted to be in compliance with the requirement. Appellant questioned the decision in the Original Petition. Learned single Judge was of the view that examination results were declared some time in November 1993 and therefore, about six months of the period covered by the experience certificate was not be taken note of. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that confusion has been created because in the certificate filed by the appellant, the date 30-11-1993 has been put. That is not the date on which the appellant can be said to have acquired the requisite qualification. Learned counsel appearing for the Commission, on the other hand, submitted that the clear indication relating to work experience was as follows : "Working experience of at least one year in a reputed (Government approved) Automobile Workshop which undertakes repairs of both Light Motor Vehicles, Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Passengers Motor Vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engine.The working experience prescribed for this post should be one acquired after the acquisition of the basic qualification prescribed for this post. The experience should be from a Government approved workshop. Experience in the capacities of paid and unpaid apprentices, trainees and casual labourers will not be accepted." Qualifications are dealt with in Part II, Rule 10 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (in short 'the K.S.S.R.'). Clause (ab) deals with the applicability of the Rules vis-a-vis the Special Rules or Recruitment Rules for a post in any service where qualification of experience is prescribed. Same reads as follows : Rule 10(ab). Clause (ab) deals with the applicability of the Rules vis-a-vis the Special Rules or Recruitment Rules for a post in any service where qualification of experience is prescribed. Same reads as follows : Rule 10(ab). - Where the Special Rules or Recruitment Rules for a post in any service prescribed qualification of experience, it shall, unless otherwise specified, be one gained by persons on temporary or regular appointment in capacities other than paid or unpaid apprentices, trainees and casual labourers in Central or State Government service or in Public Sector Undertaking or Registered Private Sector Undertaking, after acquiring the basic qualification prescribed for the post; Provided that the experience gained as factory workers on daily wages of a permanent nature may be accepted, if the service is continuous and not of a casual nature." Qualification stipulated is in the line with the provision referred to above. It is also necessary to note here that if from consideration of the general enactment intention of the Legislature is clear that it wanted to establish a rule of universal application, in such cases special provision must give way to the general provision. If the language is clear and unqualified, general rule would prevail. The general rule to be followed in the case of conflict between two statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier one. In other words, a prior special law would yield to a later general law, if either of the two following conditions is satisfied : (i) The two are inconsistent with each other, (ii) There is some express reference in the later to the earlier enactment. If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even though general, would prevail. In R. S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka 1991 4 JT (SC) 82 : (AIR 1992 SC 81), it was observed that even the general law later in time prevails over the earlier special law if it clearly and directly supersedes the said special law. It is an unexceptionable proposition of law. In R. S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka 1991 4 JT (SC) 82 : (AIR 1992 SC 81), it was observed that even the general law later in time prevails over the earlier special law if it clearly and directly supersedes the said special law. It is an unexceptionable proposition of law. As was observed by the apex Court in Prakash v. Kurien, 1999 2 Ker LT 710 : (1999 Lab IC 2341) (SC), if the intention of the rule making authority was to establish a rule of universal application to all services in the State of Kerala for which special rules are made, then special rules will give way to the general rules enacted for that purpose. That has to be found out from the language used in the rules which may be express or by implication. If the language is clear and unqualified, subsequent general rule would prevail despite repugnancy. Special law can be altered, abrogated or repealed by a later general rule by an express provision.The documents produced by appellant would show that he appeared at the examination held in April, 1993. Application was filed on 11-5-1994. As was observed by the Apex Court in Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew, AIR 1980 SC 1230 one acquires the degree or diploma only when the results are officially made known. Until then his qualification is inchoate. What was essential in the case at hand was work experience after acquiring the basic qualification. Obviously, before declaration of the results appellant cannot be said to have acquired the basic qualification. In view of the undisputed position that result of the prescribed basic qualification was published much after the date of commencement of working period and not one year prior to 11-5-1993 (from which date one year is to be computed till last date of application) inevitable conclusion is that appellant did not possess requisite working experience. In the aforesaid legal and factual background, we find nothing illicit in the judgment of learned single Judge to warrant interference. Writ appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.