JUDGMENT : (P. Krishna Kumar, J.) In this batch of original petitions, the petitioners challenge the validity of the Kerala Transport Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2022 (‘the Amendment Rules, 2022’, for short). By the said amendment, Rule 4 in the Special Rules for the Kerala Transport Service, 1981 (‘the Special Rules’, 1981, for short) has been amended to prescribe a technical qualification to the post of Joint Regional Transport Officer (Joint RTO), namely, a Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering awarded by any recognised institutions. 2. Though the petitioners raised the above challenge before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, by the common order impugned in these petitions, the Tribunal rejected their applications. For the sake of convenience, O.P.(KAT)No.416/2023 is considered as the leading case, in the following discussion. 3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. The upshot of the challenge is that when sub-clause (4) of Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short) specifically provides that it is for the Central Government to prescribe the minimum qualifications of the officers working under the Motor Vehicles Department established by the State Government, it is beyond the legislative power of the State Government to prescribe minimum educational qualifications for the post of Joint RTO and thus, the Amendment Rules, 2022 is ultra vires of Section 213 (4) of the Act. 5. To defend the said assertion, the respondents stated that as the Central Government has not so far prescribed any minimum qualifications for the post of Joint RTO, it is well within the legislative power of the State to prescribe the minimum qualifications by exercising its rule-making power conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 . 6. Apart from the challenge that the Amendment Rules, 2022 is ultra vires of Section 213(4) of the Act, certain other contentions were also raised by each of the petitioners. 6. Apart from the challenge that the Amendment Rules, 2022 is ultra vires of Section 213(4) of the Act, certain other contentions were also raised by each of the petitioners. Referring to the judgment of this court in Kerala Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors Association v. State of Kerala in O.P.No.5612/1981 dated 28.05.1982 (produced as Annexure A2 in O.P.(KAT)No.394/2023) and Basheer v. Kerala Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors Association ( 1995 KHC 521 ) which is produced as Annexure A3, it is contended that the amended rules were issued in order to nullify the said judgments, which state that Joint RTO is a non-technical and administrative post, which is not legally permissible. Various decisions of the Apex Court are cited to support this argument, including Indian Aluminium Co. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [ (1996) 7 SCC 637 ] and In Re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal v. ( AIR 1992 SC 522 ). It is also argued that when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law in a particular manner, the effect of the decision can be nullified only through a Validation Act, and not by amending the service rules. 7. It is further argued that since the State rule is repugnant to the Central Statute, it could have been promulgated only with the assent of the President of India. It is also contended that when the State Government is not the entity authorised under Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act to prescribe minimum qualifications for the posts in the Motor Vehicles Department, the question is not merely whether the rule in question is repugnant to the Central Act, but it is the very competency of the State to make the law. Referring to the decision in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others (1992 Supp. (2) SCC 651), it is contended that the competence of the law-making authority would depend on the ambit of the legislative power and the limitations imposed thereon as well as the limitations of the mode of exercise of the power. 8. It is further submitted that, when section 213(4) very specifically refers to a particular class of officers and then makes it clear that only the Central Government can fix their minimum qualification, the State Government cannot even touch that class. 8. It is further submitted that, when section 213(4) very specifically refers to a particular class of officers and then makes it clear that only the Central Government can fix their minimum qualification, the State Government cannot even touch that class. As the Central Government has not prescribed any minimum qualifications for the post of Joint RTO, the State Government cannot step in and fill the vacuum by resorting to its rule- making power, especially when the Central Statute very clearly provides that it is the province of the Centre, it is contended. 9. Another contention raised is that, if the amendment is upheld, it would create stagnation in the feeder category of Senior Superintendent/Junior Accounts Officer as almost all of them do not possess the qualifications additionally prescribed. Relying on the decision in Sajeev S. v. Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board, TVM and Another (2020(3)KHC 394) , it is contended that the absence of sufficient avenues of promotion and stagnation in a post would give rise to discontentment and inefficiency among employees, and thus the rules made in forgetfulness of this basic principle is highly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the post of Joint RTO is in fact an administrative post and thus prescribing a technical qualification for that post is highly arbitrary. 10. In order to support the respective arguments, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions: Rathinaswami M. and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2009 KHC 4616), Roop Chand v. Delhi Development Authority (1988 KHC 738), Ajal Ramakrishnan v. Athira ( 2024 (5) KLT 846 (F.B.), Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others [ (1996) 3 SCC 15 ], Virender Singh Hooda and Others v. State of Haryana and Another [ (2004) 12 SCC 588 ) and Forum for People’s Collective Efforts (FPCE) and Another v. State of West Bengal and Another [ (2021) 8 SCC 599 ] 11. To refute the said contentions, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State contended that as per Entry No.41 (State List) of the Constitution of India, the State Government has every authority to prescribe law relating to State Public Services. To refute the said contentions, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State contended that as per Entry No.41 (State List) of the Constitution of India, the State Government has every authority to prescribe law relating to State Public Services. It is also pointed out that the Centre has already notified minimum qualifications for Motor Vehicle Inspectors and Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors, but it left the post of Joint RTO unaltered and thus there is no question of any repugnancy in respect of the Amendment Rules, 2022. It is also submitted that the petitioners have not even reached the feeder category of Joint RTO and further, they have a separate line of promotion apart from resorting to the by-transfer appointment to the post of Joint RTO. To fortify their submissions, the following decisions were referred to: O.P. Lather & Ors. v. Satish Kumar Kakkar & Ors. [ (2001) 3 SCC 110 ], Dist. Collector Satara & Anr. v. Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid [( 2019 (10) SCC 166 ], Rathinaswami M & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu [ (2009) 5 SCC 625 ], Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through its Secretary v. Sandeep Shriram Warade [ (2019) 6 SCC 362 ], S.Satyapal Reddy & Others v. Govt. of A.P.& Others [ (1994) 4 SCC 391 ], Anup V.H. v. Pramod A.D .[ 2024 (7) KHC 263 (DB)], State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors ( AIR 1974 SC 1 ), and Chandan Banerjee v. Krishna Prosad Ghosh [2021 (5) KLT 1127 (SC)]. 12. As the core dispute in this matter centres around the effect of Section 213 of the Act and the validity of the Amendment Rules, 2022, the relevant parts of the provisions are reproduced hereunder with added emphasis on the most significant parts: 213. Appointment of motor vehicles officers . (1) The State Government may , for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act, establish a Motor Vehicles Department and appoint as officers thereof such persons as it thinks fit (2) Every such officer shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (45 of 1860). (1) The State Government may , for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act, establish a Motor Vehicles Department and appoint as officers thereof such persons as it thinks fit (2) Every such officer shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (45 of 1860). (3) The State Government may make rules to regulate the discharge by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department of their functions and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power to prescribe the uniform to be worn by them, the authorities to which they shall be subordinate, the duties to be performed by them, the powers (including the powers exercisable by police officers under this Act) to be exercised by them, and the conditions governing the exercise of such powers. (4) The Central Government may, having regard to the objects of the Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, prescribe the minimum qualifications which the said officers or any class thereof shall possess for being appointed as such. XXXXXXXXX The Amendment Rules, 2022 reads as follows: “ In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section (2) of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 (19 of 1968), the Government of Kerala hereby make the following rules further to amend the Special Rules for the Kerala Transport Service issued under G.O (P) No. 91/81/TF&P dated 5th October, 1981 and published as S.R.O. No. 1164/81 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.792 dated 14th October, 1981, namely:- 1. Short title and commencement.- (1) These rules may be called the Kerala Transport Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2022. (2) They shall come into force at once. 2.Amendment of the Rules.- In the Special Rules for the Kerala Transport Service, 1981, in rule 4, after sub-rule (c) the following sub-rules shall be inserted, namely:- “ (d) No person shall be eligible for appointment by transfer to category 4 unless he possesses the qualifications specified below: 1.Pass in SSLC or its equivalent. 2. (i) A diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education (3 year course) or any institution recognized by the Central Government or the State Government; or (ii) Any qualification in either of the above disciplines declared as equivalent to the above diplomas by the Central Government or the State Government. 3. 2. (i) A diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education (3 year course) or any institution recognized by the Central Government or the State Government; or (ii) Any qualification in either of the above disciplines declared as equivalent to the above diplomas by the Central Government or the State Government. 3. Must hold a current valid driving license authorizing him to drive motorcycle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle. (e) Saving.- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (d), the qualifications specified therein shall not be applicable to persons belonging to category 4 who entered in, or promoted from, the said category and also to persons who entered the feeder categories for by-transfer appointment to category 4, prior to the date of commencement of the Kerala Transport Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2022 in the official Gazette:” The method of appointment of Joint RTO (Category No.4) is by promotion from Motor Vehicle Inspectors (Category No.5) as well as by transfer from Senior Superintendents/Junior Accounts Officers of the Motor Vehicles Department. It was pointed out during the hearing that the saving clause would protect them for further promotion/by transfer appointment, even if they do not possess the newly introduced technical qualification. The petitioners are working as Junior Superintendent, Head Clerk, Senior Clerk etc., which posts are not the feeder category to Joint RTO. According to them, they will be affected by the amendment, as they did not possess the said qualification and the saving clause will not help them. 13. Section 213(4) of the Act is, in fact, an enabling provision. It enables the Central Government to prescribe a minimum qualification for such officers or any class thereof for being appointed in the Motor Vehicles Department established by the State Government. The purpose is evident from Section 213 itself. The officers of the Motor Vehicle Department should possess higher standards to implement the policy of the State as set out in the Motor Vehicles Act. For this purpose, the Central Government may, if it thinks fit, prescribe any minimum qualification for any of the posts in the Motor Vehicles Department established by the State Government. Thus, the question of prescribing minimum qualification by the Central Government arises only when the qualification prescribed by the State Government as part of the regular conditions of service of its officers is insufficient to achieve the said objects. Thus, the question of prescribing minimum qualification by the Central Government arises only when the qualification prescribed by the State Government as part of the regular conditions of service of its officers is insufficient to achieve the said objects. 14. It is relevant to note that as per Section 213(1)of the Act, the duty to establish a Motor Vehicle Department and appoint officers in such a department is vested in the State Government. Section 213(3) further empowers the State Government to make rules to regulate the discharge of the functions of those officers of the Motor Vehicle Department including the duties to be performed by them, the powers to be exercised by them and the conditions governing the exercise of those powers. However, the power of the State Government to prescribe conditions of services of persons appointed to any public service, or for regulating their recruitment, is governed by the provisions of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 . The scope of Section 213(3) of the Act is distinct from the purposes for which the State Government is empowered to prescribe rules under the Kerala Public Services Act. By exercising these powers, if the State Government prescribes minimum or special qualifications for the post of Joint RTO, nothing in the Motor Vehicles Act would bar it from doing so. At the same time, if the Central Government having regard to the objects of the Act prescribes a different minimum qualification for the said post, then the incumbent must possess the qualification prescribed by the Central Government. This is the scheme embodied in Section 213 of the Act. 15. As evident from the object and reasons of the Amendment Rules, various expert bodies including the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety and the Departmental Promotion Committee for the Motor Vehicles Department felt that technical qualifications are to be mandatorily prescribed for the officers posted in the Motor Vehicles Department. It is true that the Supreme Court Committee had appealed to the Central Government, not the State Government, to prescribe such technical qualifications. It may be true that the Departmental Promotion Committee is not entrusted with the duty to recommend technical qualifications for the post in the Motor Vehicles Department. However, what is relevant is the legislative competence of the State to prescribe the above qualification to the post of Joint RTO. It may be true that the Departmental Promotion Committee is not entrusted with the duty to recommend technical qualifications for the post in the Motor Vehicles Department. However, what is relevant is the legislative competence of the State to prescribe the above qualification to the post of Joint RTO. The State Government proceeded to prescribe the said qualification when they found that it was essential for discharging the duties invested with the officers in the said category. While arriving at such a conclusion, the State Government has only relied on the reports of the said Committees. The materials upon which a legislative decision is taken have no relevance in a proceeding of the present nature where the sheet anchor of the challenge depends upon the vires of the legislation. The above facts, nevertheless, show that the introduction of technical qualification by the said amendment was not an arbitrary exercise of power. 16. The law is well settled that a rule made under a statute by a competent authority can be challenged only on the following grounds: (a) when it is ultra vires the parent Act; (b) when it is opposed to the fundamental rights or there is manifest arbitrariness; and (c) when it is opposed to any other plenary laws. It is already found that prescribing a technical qualification to the post of Joint RTO by the State Government cannot be considered as repugnant to the provisions of the Act. The petitioners cannot also contend that the amendments would offend their fundamental rights, as no one has a fundamental right to be promoted. It is settled law that the reduction of promotional avenues by a subsequent amendment to the law cannot be cited as a reason to challenge the amended statutory provisions. Such changes are also part of the conditions of service of the employees. The right of the employees to be considered for promotion is only on the basis of the law existing at the time when they are considered for promotion unless it is otherwise specifically saved in the amended law. 17. The above discussion answers the contention of the petitioners that the State amendment for prescribing qualification to the posts of officers in the Motor Vehicles Department is inhibited by the provisions of Section 213 of the Act. 17. The above discussion answers the contention of the petitioners that the State amendment for prescribing qualification to the posts of officers in the Motor Vehicles Department is inhibited by the provisions of Section 213 of the Act. As discussed above, Section 213(4) of the Act is only an enabling provision for prescribing minimum qualifications for the officers in the Motor Vehicles Department by the Central Government, though they are appointed by the State Government. It cannot be said that it is an occupied field. The said provision does not expressly or impliedly bar the authority of the State Government to prescribe qualifications to the officials in the Motor Vehicles Department established by the State. 18. In fact, this aspect is pointedly dealt with by the Honourable Supreme Court in S.Satyapal Reddy & Others v. Govt. of A.P.& Others (supra). In the said case, an exactly similar question was raised before the Supreme Court. The Government of Andhra Pradesh prescribed a Degree in Mechanical Engineering as a qualification for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service. This was challenged on the ground that as per Section 213(4) of the Act, the power to prescribe qualification is vested in the Central Government. The Apex Court held that Entry 41 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India empowers the State Government to prescribe qualifications for any of the officers in its public service and it includes the officers to be appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 213 of the Act. The Court further held that Article 309 of the Constitution of India empowers the Governor to make rules regulating recruitment which includes prescription of qualifications for appointment to an office or post under the State, and the Transport Department constituted by the State Government, belongs to the State services and thus the State Government is entitled to prescribe qualifications to the posts as part of the conditions of service or for recruitment purposes. The Apex Court further held that the provisions of the Act receive paramountcy only when there is a conflict between the rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Act. Thus, if the Central Government prescribes a higher qualification for the officials under the Act, the State Government cannot prescribe a lesser qualification. The Apex Court further held that the provisions of the Act receive paramountcy only when there is a conflict between the rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Act. Thus, if the Central Government prescribes a higher qualification for the officials under the Act, the State Government cannot prescribe a lesser qualification. It is further held that rules made by the Central Government under Section 213(4) and the statutory rules made by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are to be construed harmoniously. It is significant to quote the relevant paragraphs of the judgment hereunder: “Therefore, sub-section (1) of section 213 gives power to the State Government to create Transport Department and to appoint officers, as it thinks fit. . . . . . . The Governor has been given power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, subject to any law made by the State Legislature, to make rules regulating the recruitment which includes prescription of qualifications for appointment to an office or post under the State. Since the Transport Department under the Act is constituted by the State Government and the officers appointed to those posts belong to the State service, while appointing its own officers, the State Government as a necessary adjunct is entitled to prescribe qualifications for recruitment or conditions of service. But while so prescribing, the State Government may accept the qualifications or prescribe higher qualification but in no case prescribe any qualification less than the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government under sub-section (4) of section 213 of the Act. In the latter event i.e., prescribing lesser qualifications, both the rules cannot operate without colliding with each other. When the rules made by the Central Government under section 213 (4) and the statutory rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are construed harmoniously, there is no incompatibility or inconsistency in the operation of both the rules to appoint fit persons to the posts or class of officers of the State Government vis-a-vis the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government under sub-section (4) of section 213 of the Act.” 19. To conclude, while Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the Central Government to prescribe minimum qualifications for posts in the Motor Vehicles Department, this does not preclude the State Government from prescribing its own qualifications for the service in the Motor Vehicles Department. The State Government’s competence to enact the impugned Amendment Rule, 2022, remains unquestionable, as it is a piece of subordinate legislation made by the State Government drawing its power from Section 2 of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 . Furthermore, Entry No. 41 of List II of the Constitution of India grants the State Legislature exclusive power to legislate on matters relating to the public services of the State. Therefore, the issue of repugnancy with Section 213(4) of the Act would arise only if the Central Government, through a notification, prescribes a minimum qualification for the post of Joint RTO and that is higher than the qualification stipulated under the Amendment Rules, 2022. 20. Let us now consider the challenge made against the Amendment Rules, 2022 on the ground that it goes against Annexure A2 and A3 judgments of this Court. Annexure A2 judgment was delivered by this court when the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors approached the court seeking a direction that technical qualification should be insisted on for the Category 4 post of Joint RTO. The relief sought by the petitioners in the said case was that the Special Rules for Kerala Transport Service, 1981 should be amended to incorporate additional technical qualifications. While disposing of the matter, the learned Single Judge observed that the functions of the Joint RTO are administrative in nature and the petitioners failed to show that public interest for safety requires that persons holding the post of Joint RTO and above should possess technical qualifications or technical knowledge of the same nature. The said observations were made after considering the then-existing Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules as compared to the erstwhile Special Rules of 1962. It cannot thus be projected as a roadblock to the legislative competence of the State to prescribe technical qualifications to the said post. 21. The said observations were made after considering the then-existing Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules as compared to the erstwhile Special Rules of 1962. It cannot thus be projected as a roadblock to the legislative competence of the State to prescribe technical qualifications to the said post. 21. In Basheer v. Kerala Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors Association ( 1995 KHC 521 ), the question raised was that, when the Government of India prescribed certain minimum qualifications to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors, by issuing a notification, was it open to the State Government to make appointments to the posts of Joint RTOs and RTOs if they do not have the minimum qualifications prescribed under the said notification. After following the decision of the Apex Court in S.Satyapal Reddy & Others v. Govt. of A.P.& Others (supra), the Division Bench held that there is absolutely no conflict between the Special Rules, 1981 and the notification issued by the Central Government, as both of them are supplementary to each other and that they are reconcilable. The Court also held that the notification issued by the Central Government does not apply to the post of Joint RTO and RTO in the State of Kerala. The main dispute raised in the above judgment is whether the officers in the category of ‘Inspector of Motor Vehicles’ include Joint RTO. In the most part of the judgment, the court was considering the above aspect and it finally concluded that Joint RTO would not come within the definition of “Inspector of Motor Vehicles”. Nevertheless, while discussing the matter in detail, the Bench observed that there are statutory indications to show that the Act and the Rules contemplated non- technically qualified people holding the superior post. The Bench further referred to certain observations made in Annexure A2 judgment as well, to the extent that for discharging various duties enjoined on the Joint RTO and the RTO, they do not require technical knowledge of any sort and they exercise mostly administrative functions and wherever they are expected to do some inspection of vehicles or other technical aspects, they could take the assistance of technically qualified AMVIs or MVIs. However, the said observations were made by the Single Bench in the context that the relief sought for by the petitioners in the said case was that the Special Rules for Kerala Transport Service, 1981 should be amended to incorporate additional technical qualifications. 22. It is important to note that the entire exercise made by the Division Bench was on the basis of the following questions framed for the determination of the case: “(1) Whether the Kerala State Transport Service Rules and the Kerala State Transport Subordinate Service Rules continue to be valid and operative after 1st July 1989? (2) Whether Ext. P-4 notification dated 12th June 1989 SO 443 (E) as amended on 29th April 1991 as per SO 381 (E) applies to the posts of Joint Regional Transport Officer and Regional Transport Officer in the State of Kerala? (3) Whether Ext. P-4 notification as amended superseded the State Transport Service Rules and the Kerala State Transport Subordinate Service Rules? (4) Whether the State Rules for Transport Service and the State Transport Subordinate Service Rules are in conflict with Ext. P-4 notification as amended or whether they are reconcilable and they can co-exist? (5) Whether Ext. P-8 order dated 24th June 1991 is liable to be quashed?” It is thus evident that the observation about technical qualification was only an incidental comment and the ratio of the decision, as stated earlier, is completely different. In fact, the said judgment further upheld the authority of the State Government to prescribe rules dehors the provisions contained in Section 213(4) of the Act, following the law laid down by the Apex Court in S.Satyapal Reddy & Others v. Govt. of A.P.& Others (supra). 23. For the above reasons, we are not in a position to apply the principle enunciated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law in a particular manner, the effect of the decision can be nullified only through a Validation Act, and not by amending the service rules. The government, being the delegated authority to make rules, can certainly modify the provisions of the rules on which a verdict is delivered by the court. But it cannot set aside an individual decision inter-parties, as it would amount to exercising the judicial power by the State, which is impermissible under the constitutional scheme of separation of powers. The government, being the delegated authority to make rules, can certainly modify the provisions of the rules on which a verdict is delivered by the court. But it cannot set aside an individual decision inter-parties, as it would amount to exercising the judicial power by the State, which is impermissible under the constitutional scheme of separation of powers. Nevertheless, the power of the Government to frame rules is intact even if the factual and legal foundation of earlier judicial decisions is thereby modified. However, in the present case, after analysing Annexure A2 and A3 judgments, we do not find that the Amendment Rule, 2022 in any manner overturns the above judicial decisions. 24. It is also significant to note that the above decision was rendered by the Court for the absence of any statutory provision mandating that the post of Joint RTO requires a technical qualification. The Court noticed that a rule amendment to make such change was in the offing. It observed as follows: “29…… Though as per the suggestion of the Minister some draft Rules were prepared, till they are scrutinised by the Law Department and till they are approved by the Subordinate Legislation Committee of the Legislature, they cannot be brought into force. Any how, in this particular batch of writ appeals, we are not concerned with what will happen as and when the Rules are amended. It is a matter that will have to be considered by the State Executive.” In paragraph 34, the Court further stated as follows: “34. Assuming for a moment that there is some divergence between Ext.- P-4 and the Kerala State Transport Service Rules and the Kerala State Subordinate Service Rules, even then both of them are reconcilable and they can co-exist supplementing each other. Only when there is a direct conflict or inconsistency perhaps the State Rules may have to yield place to the Central Rules. On this particular aspect, it is argued by the learned counsel that even if there is any conflict the Rules framed under the power derived under Art.309 of the Constitution would prevail over Ext. P-4 which is a mere notification under the Central enactment.” The ‘draft Rules’ mentioned above materialised in the form of the Amendment Rule only in the year 2022. The court pronounced the judgment in the above manner, as technical qualification was not a statutory requirement at the relevant time. P-4 which is a mere notification under the Central enactment.” The ‘draft Rules’ mentioned above materialised in the form of the Amendment Rule only in the year 2022. The court pronounced the judgment in the above manner, as technical qualification was not a statutory requirement at the relevant time. Thus, there is no justification for challenging the said amendment by resorting to the very same judgment, which was pronounced in the above circumstance. 25. In short, it is to be concluded that the amended rule in question is valid and it is not repugnant to the provisions of Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The findings of this Court in Basheer v. Kerala Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors Association are substantially in line with the discussion made above and it is not possible to hold that the delegated legislation in question is invalid as it goes against the observations made therein. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. In the result, the Original Petitions are dismissed, upholding the findings of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.