JUDGMENT : V.G.Arun, J. The petitioners in this original petition were respondent Nos. 21, 23, 24 and 25 in O.A.No.653 of 2017 filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The applicants before the Tribunal are arrayed as respondents 1 to 20 and 22 in this original petition. The parties and the documents are referred hereafter as per their description in the original application. The dispute is between candidates in the rank list and the in-service candidates eligible for by transfer appointment to the post of Nursing Tutor. Prior to the introduction of the Kerala Health Services (Nursing in Education Wing) Service Rules,2010, with effect from 18.3.2010, appointment to the post of Nursing Tutor was entirely by way of by transfer from among eligible in-service candidates, in the absence of whom alone direct recruitment could be resorted to. 2. The applicants before the Tribunal are persons included in Annexure A1 rank list of Nursing Tutor published by the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short 'PSC') and brought into effect from 30.3.2017. The party respondents before the Tribunal, including the petitioners herein, are in-service personnel appointed by transfer to the vacant posts of Nursing Tutor. The issue canvassed before the Tribunal was as to whether the ratio 3:1 for appointment by way of by transfer and direct recruitment to the post of Nursing Tutor provided under the Kerala Health Services (Nursing in Education Wing) Service Rules, 2010 ought to be applied to the cadre strength of the post or to the vacancies arising from time to time. 3. As per Annexure A3 letter dated 9.5.2011, the Government clarified that the vacancies which had arisen prior to the Special Rules should be filled up by following the method prevailing at the time when the vacancies had arisen and the vacancies arising after the Special Rules came intoforce are to be filled up by applying the ratio 3:1 to the cadre strength. 4. As on 18.3.2010, the date of introduction of the Special Rules, the cadre strength of Nursing Tutors post was 87. Out of the 87 posts, 65 posts were lying vacant. Thereafter, 16 vacancies of Nursing Tutor arose in between 18.10.2010 and 1.12.2015, as evidenced by Annexure A4. Out of the 16 vacancies, 4 were reported to the PSC for direct recruitment and 12 vacancies filled up through by-transfer appointment. Out of the 87 posts, 65 posts were lying vacant. Thereafter, 16 vacancies of Nursing Tutor arose in between 18.10.2010 and 1.12.2015, as evidenced by Annexure A4. Out of the 16 vacancies, 4 were reported to the PSC for direct recruitment and 12 vacancies filled up through by-transfer appointment. Eight more vacancies are alleged to have arisen due to retirement, termination and non-joining of candidates and 19 posts created as per Annexure A6 dated 20.10.2016. Out of these 27 vacancies, 19 were filled through by transfer method and 5 were reported to the PSC. Annexure A5 evidences 76 vacancies of Nursing Tutor having been filled up through by transfer appointment. According to the applicants, with the addition of 19 posts as per Annexure A6, the present cadre strength of Nursing Tutor became 106 (87+19) and therefore, applying the ratio 3:1 to the cadre, 26 vacancies that arose after 24.3.2010 ought to have been filled up by direct recruitment. Instead, all the vacancies that had arisen before the Special Rules came into force and 31 out of the 43 vacancies that had arisen after the Special Rules came into force were filled up by effecting by transfer appointment and only 8 were reported to the PSC. 5. The respondents on the other hand submitted that 44 vacancies had arisen after 18.3.2010, including three NJD vacancies of by transfer appointees. By applying the 3:1 ratio, 10 vacancies were reported to the PSC for direct recruitment. The remaining 34 vacancies (including the 3 NJD vacancies) were filled up by way of by transfer appointment from among Head Nurse, Staff Nurse-Gr.I and Gr.II. This, the respondents contended, was in accordance with the prescription in the Special Rules, which was to apply the ratio 3:1 to the vacancies. 6. The legal contention urged by the applicants was that Note (3) to Rule 5 of Part II KS&SSR mandates application of the ratio to the cadre strength. To buttress this contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Prasad Kurien and others v. K.J. Augustin and others [ (2008) 3 SCC 529 ]. The contesting respondents banked on Rule 2 of Part II KS&SSR to contend that the Special Rules-being later in point of time, will prevail over the provisions in the General Rules. The contesting respondents banked on Rule 2 of Part II KS&SSR to contend that the Special Rules-being later in point of time, will prevail over the provisions in the General Rules. It was contended that, the ratio prescribed by the Special Rule is not regulated by Note (3) to Rule 5 of Part II KS&SSR and has to be applied to the vacancies arising after introduction of the Special Rules. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala and others [ (2010) 4 SCC 498 ] and Kulwant Singh and others v. Daya Ram and others [ (2015) 3 SCC 177 ]. 7. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the contentions found that, though the Special Rule is later in point of time, in the absence of any prescription therein that the ratio should be applied to the vacancies, there was no repugnancy between the Special Rules and the provisions of the General Rules. It was hence held that Note (3) to Rule 5 of Part II KS&SSR, requiring application of ratio to the cadre strength, still holds the field. On facts, it was found that out of the 26 posts available for direct recruitment from among the total 106 posts, only 11 had been advised for direct recruitment and therefore, 15 more candidates should be advised and appointed from the existing rank list to maintain the cadre strength. Based on the said finding, the official respondents were directed to re-assess the vacancies from thedate of coming into force of Annexure A2 Special Rules and identify the persons appointed by transfer in excess of the ratio of 3:1 and after such identification and re-assessment, to report those vacancies to the PSC. 8. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.Raju Joseph appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Saju John, learned Counsel appearing for the party respondents, Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the PSC and Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State. 9. Shorn of unnecessary details and unmerited contentions, the dispute boils down to the mode of application of the ratio of 3:1 to the 44 vacancies that arose after the Special Rules came into effect. Out of the 44 vacancies, 31 vacancies were filled up by way of by transfer appointments and 11 candidates from the PSC rank list were advised for appointment. Out of the 44 vacancies, 31 vacancies were filled up by way of by transfer appointments and 11 candidates from the PSC rank list were advised for appointment. The application of the ratio would depend on whether the relevant provision in the General Rules, which in this case is Note (3) to Rule 5 of Part II of KS&SSR, would continue to apply in spite of introduction of the Special Rules. 10. The Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules consist of three parts, namely Part I, II and III. Part I contains definitions; Part II contains General Rules and Part III contains Rules applicable to each service or class of service. As per Rule 2(8), of Part I, 'General Rules' mean the Rules in Part II. Rule 2of Part II stipulates that if any provision in the General Rules is repugnant to a provision in the Special Rules applicable to any particular service contained in Part III, the Special Rules shall, in respect of that service, prevail over the provisions in the General Rules in Part II. Rule 5 of Part II deals with the method of recruitment to any service, class or category, when the recruitment, is neither solely by direct recruitment nor by transfer, but is both by direct recruitment and by transfer. Note (3) to Rule 5 of Part II KS&SSR with the nominal heading 'Method of Recruitment' , reads as follows:- “Whenever ratio or percentage is fixed for different methods of recruitment/appointment to a post, the number of vacancies to be filled up by candidates from each method shall be decided by applying the fixed ratio or percentage to the cadre strength of the post to which the recruitment/transfer is made and not to the vacancies existing at that time.” 11. It may be apposite to mention that Note (3) to Rule 5 was added by the KSS&SR (Amendment) Rules, 1992 dated 5.12.1992. The object and reason of the amendment, as discernible from the explanatory note is that, the appointments to various posts in the Departments of the Government being on the basis of ratio or percentage in the Special Rules, the Government considered it necessary to clarify that proportionate appointments to be filled up by different methods should be calculated on the basis of the cadre strength and not on the basis of the vacancies. The other relevant provision is the Note under Rule 3 of Category No.4, Nursing Tutor, in the Kerala Health Services (Nursing in Education Wing) Service Rules, 2010, [the Special Rules]which is as under: “(1) Appointment by transfer from the category of Head Nurse/Staff Nurse Grade-I/Staff Nurse Grade-II in the Kerala Health Services (Nursing in Hospital Wing) Subordinate Service. (2) By direct recruitment through KPSC. Note: A ratio 3:1 shall be fixed between the method of by transfer and by direct recruitment.” Rule 2 of Part II KS&SSR is to the effect that the Special Rules,which is introduced later to the General Rules would prevail, if there is repugnancy between the provisions of the GeneralRules and the Special rules. The essential question therefore is whether Note (3) of Rule 5 Part II of KS&SSR is repugnant to the Note under Rule 3 of Category No.4 of the Special Rules. 12. For a provision to be repugnant with another, they should be in conflict or incompatible with each other. Under the Special Rules, only ratio is prescribed and the mode of application of the ratio is not stated. In the absence of provision regarding application of ratio in the Special Rules, the question of repugnancy does not arise and it is the provisions of the General Rules that will apply. The prescription under the General Rules being the application of the fixed ratio to the cadre strength of the post to which the recruitment/transfer is made and not to the vacancies existing at that time, the recruitment/transfer after the introduction of the Special Rules will necessarily be governed by the provision in the General Rules. As a matter of fact, this position was correctly understood by the Government as evidenced by Annexure A3, wherein it is categorically stated that vacancies prior to the Special Rules will be governed by the then existing mode of appointment and vacancies subsequent to the Special Rules should be reported in accordance with the ratio 3:1, and the ratio maintained in accordance with the cadre strength. There is no challenge against Annexure A3 in the original application and the attempt to interpret Annexure A3 to be a provision favouring application of the ratio to the vacancies was rightly turned down by the Tribunal. 13. There is no challenge against Annexure A3 in the original application and the attempt to interpret Annexure A3 to be a provision favouring application of the ratio to the vacancies was rightly turned down by the Tribunal. 13. Coming to the precedents cited by either side, in Prasad Kurien, the challenge was with respect to the manner in which the proportion of promotion and direct recruitment as provided in the Special Rules was to be applied. The challenge therein was initiated by the in-service candidates against the attempt of the Government to make direct recruitment in excess of the proportion provided in the Special Rules, as regulated by Note (3) to Rule 5 of Part II of KS&SSR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in S.Prakash v. K.M.Kurian [ (1999) 5 SCC 624 ] and held that Note (3) to Rule 5 of the General Rules governs the application of the proportion prescribed in the Special Rules, for reason of the amendment to Rule 5 by adding Note (3)having been incorporated after the Special Rules was framed. The Apex Court also held that the KS&SSR was deemed to be the rule framed under the enactment brought out under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, viz; the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968. 14. In S.Prakash, the Apex Court dilated on the legal principles, “generalia specialibus non derogant” [general things do not derogate from special things] and “generaliabus specialia derogant” [special things derogate from general things], and the exception to those principles. On the facts of the case, it was held that there was no repugnancy between the general and special provisions, since the amendment brought about by the general provision only filled up the lacuna in the special provision with regard to determination of vacancies. Understanding the principle in the backdrop of legislative intention, it was held that if the intention of the rule making authority was to establish a rule of universal application to all the services in the State of Kerala for which Special Rules are made, hence the Special Rules will give way to the General Rules enacted for that purpose, which has to be found out from the language used in the rules, whether it be expressed or implied. It was held that if intention of the rule making authority, as reflected though the provision in the General Rules, is to sweep away all Special Rules and to establish a uniform pattern for computation of ratio or percentage of direct recruits and by transfer, the Special Rules will have to give way. With respect to Note (3) of Rule 5 KS&SSR, the Apex Court held that the language of Note (3) is crystal clear and it applies to all Special Rules whenever a ratio or percentage is prescribed in the Rules and Note (3) emphatically states that it has to be computed on the cadre strength of the post to which the recruitment is to be made and not on the basis of vacancies existing at that time. 15. The legal position as exposited by the aforementioned judgments lead to the definite conclusion that if the General Rule is later in time or if there is no repugnancy between the General and the Special Rules, the General Rules will prevail over the Special Rules. The distinction drawn with respect to this legal proposition in Maya Mathew was based on the facts of that case. The distinction has been succinctly explained in paragraph 20 of the impugned order of the Tribunal, in the following manner:- “We find from the Special Rules that the Note providing the ratio of 3:1 is not in conflict with the above Note under Rule 5. Of course, if there was a conflict, then going by Rule 2 of Part II KS & SSR the Special Rules will prevail. The same is the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the decision relied upon by learned counsel Sri. B.Raghunathan in Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala and others. A reading of the said judgment will show that the Special Rules that was considered therein Note 2 specifically provided that “in the absence of candidates by transfer those vacancies in each category will be filled up by direct recruitment from open quota". B.Raghunathan in Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala and others. A reading of the said judgment will show that the Special Rules that was considered therein Note 2 specifically provided that “in the absence of candidates by transfer those vacancies in each category will be filled up by direct recruitment from open quota". While interpreting the said provision, the Apex Court finally concluded that unlike cases considered by the Apex Court earlier in S. Prakash and another v. K.M. Kurian and others - 1999 (5) SCC 624 and Prasad Kurien and others v. K.J. Augustin and others - 2008 (3) SCC 529 , therein the Special Rules which is later in point of time, contains clear and specific terms, and the Special Rules will prevail. It was held that the ratio will have to be applied with reference to the vacancies which were notified and not with reference to the cadre strength. In this case even though the Special Rules are later in point of time as there is no specification that the ratio has to be applied to the vacancies arising from time to time, it will have to yield to Rule 5 and Note 3 of the General Rules of KS & SSR. Therefore, evidently, the ratio will have to be applied to the cadre strength. There is no dispute regarding the total cadre strength, being 106.” We are in complete agreement with the above exposition of law by the Tribunal. The Special Rules considered in Maya Mathew was Rule 3 of the Kerala State Homeopathy Services, 1989, which provided for method of appointment to different categories of the posts to be in the manner specified in the Table given under the rule. Entry 5 of the said Table, which was in issue, pertaining to Medical Officers, reads as under:- Category of post Method of appointments Medical Officer 1. By direct recruitment 2. By transfer from the category of Nurse (Homeopathy) 3. By transfer from the category of Pharmacist (Homeopathy) 4. By transfer from the category of Clerks (Homeo Department) Note: 1. A ratio of 5:1:1:1 shall be maintained in making appointments between direct recruitment, transfer from Nurses (Homeopathy), Pharmacist (Homeopathy) and Clerks in the Homeopathy Department. 2. The appointment by transfer of Nurse (Homeopathy), Pharmacist (Homeopathy), Clerk (Homoeopathy) will be done by a selection through the Kerala Public Service Commission from among the three categories. A ratio of 5:1:1:1 shall be maintained in making appointments between direct recruitment, transfer from Nurses (Homeopathy), Pharmacist (Homeopathy) and Clerks in the Homeopathy Department. 2. The appointment by transfer of Nurse (Homeopathy), Pharmacist (Homeopathy), Clerk (Homoeopathy) will be done by a selection through the Kerala Public Service Commission from among the three categories. In the absence of candidates by transfer those vacancies in each category will be filled up by direct recruitment from open quota and the backlog for such categories will not be restored.” (emphasis supplied). 16. The question involved in Kulwant Singh was with respect to the effect of an amendment to a provision in the Punjab Police Rules providing for promotion from the post of Constable to Head Constable. The repugnancy or otherwise between the General Rules and the Special Rules not being anissue in Kulwant Singh , the decision has no application to the case at hand. 17. The interplay between the General Rules and the Special Rules was considered by this Court in State of Kerala and others v. Manoj Kabeer M.K. [O.P.(KAT) No.208 of 2019] and connected cases. The question considered in those original petitions was as to whether the General Rule in the KS&SSR for consideration of merit and suitability for promotion of policemen would survive in the context of Section 101 (6) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011; insofar as the penalties in items (a) to (j) of Section 101 (4) are concerned. The contention raised in the original petitions by the Police personnel imposed with penalty consequent to departmental proceedings was that their non-inclusion in the select list for promotion for reason of the penalty was illegal in view of the exception under Section 101(6) of the Kerala Police Act, inasmuch as the rigor of penalty applied to the relevant assessment years cannot be a bar for promotion when the penalty imposed is one of those under items (a) to (j) of Section 101(4). After detailed consideration of the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court through Prasad Kurien and S.Prakash, this Court distinguished those decisions in view of the facts involved in the cases under consideration and proceeded to hold as follows:- “20. The provisions of the KS&SSR specifically speak of a 'Select list' prepared on the assessment of merit and ability. The provisions of the KS&SSR specifically speak of a 'Select list' prepared on the assessment of merit and ability. Janakiraman & K.S.Murugesan in categoric terms declare that a penalty imposed or the employee being under the rigour of penalty, in the assessment years is a relevant consideration for assessment of merit and ability. However, in the instant case the Legislature in its wisdom avoided certain penalties from consideration in the case of police personnel. None can challenge the wisdom of the Legislature. We do not think the learned Senior Government Pleader is correct in saying that such bar from consideration of penalties applies only when a person is included in the select list. Such an interpretation will render otiose sub-section (6) of Section 101 of the Police Act. The bar applies at all times when a person is considered for promotion, equally to the DPC, assessing merit and suitability and the appointing authority, who makes promotions from the 'Select list'. Janakiraman & K.S.Murugesan would not be applicable in the teeth of the special provisions in the statute (Police Act) regulating the service/promotion of police personnel, which is also later in time to the general rules of the KS&SSR.” A reading of the provisions and the conspectus of judicial opinion lead to the irresistible conclusion that as far as application of the ratio 3:1 for appointment to the post of Nursing Tutor is concerned Note (3) to Rule 5 of Part II KS&SSR would apply, and that the ratio should be applied to the cadre strength. The Tribunal having arrived at the same finding and having issued consequential directions based on that finding, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. In the result the original petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.