Holding

The Supreme Court held that the 1950 Rules remained operative for recruitment to Subordinate Civil Courts in 1981, the 1969 Amending Rules did not repeal them, and the 1975 Rules did not apply, rendering the 1981 examination valid.

Summary

The case concerned the validity of a competitive examination held in 1981 for recruitment to Grade III ministerial staff of the Subordinate Civil Courts in Kanpur. The petitioner argued that the examination, conducted under the 1950 Rules, was unauthorised because the 1969 Amending Rules and the 1975 Rules had superseded the 1950 Rules. The Supreme Court examined the hierarchy and effect of the 1947, 1950, 1969 and 1975 Rules, applying the doctrine of implied repeal and principles of statutory interpretation. It held that the 1950 Rules were not repealed for the Subordinate Courts, the 1969 Amending Rules did not expressly abrogate them, and the 1975 Rules did not apply to courts under the High Court’s control. Consequently, the 1981 examination was valid, the High Court’s order quashing it was set aside, and the successful candidates were to be appointed. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The extent to which the 1950 Rules superseded the 1947 Rules – whether they repealed the entire 1947 Rules or only the inconsistent provisions.
Whether the 1969 Amending Rules effectively repealed or displaced the 1950 Rules for recruitment to Subordinate Civil Courts.
Whether the 1975 Rules repealed the 1950 Rules as they pertained to Subordinate Courts under the High Court’s control.
Whether the doctrine of implied repeal applies to the sequence of Rules and renders the 1950 Rules inoperative.
Whether the competitive examination held in 1981 under the 1950 Rules was unauthorised and liable to be set aside.
Whether the High Court’s order quashing the Kanpur examination should be affirmed or reversed.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 309, s. Article 313

Subjects

recruitmentministerial establishmentsubordinate civil courtsrulesimplied repealcompetitive examinationstatutory interpretation

Judgment

A

Vo
AKllILESH KilMAR Sll1lKLA. & ORS,

MARCH 18, 1986
B
[A.P, SEN, E.S, VENKATARAMIAH AND B.C. RAY, JJ,]

U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishments
Rules, 1947/Rules for the Recruitment of Ministerial Staff to
the Subordinate offices, 1950/Subordinate Civil Courts Minis-
terial Establishment (Amendment) Rules, 1969 Subordinate
Off tr.es Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitm~nt) Rules, 1975, c
Rules 5, 9-12, and Appendix II of 194 7 Rules
Recruitment to establishment - 1950 Rules - Applicability of,

Interpretation of statutes : Doctrine of implied repeal
- Applicability of. D

Recruitment to the ministerial establisbllent in the
Subordinate Civil Courts of the United Provinces was regulated
by the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establisha!lenta
Rules 1947. Rule 11 provided that the recruitment shall be
based on the results of a competitive examination and an E
interview, to be held in the manner laid down in Appendix II.
On July 15, 1950, the Governor in supersession of all existing
rules pr01111lgated the 'Rules for the Recruitment of Minis-
terial Staff to the Subordinate Offices, 1950' for the
recruit...nt of ministerial staff to the subordinate offices in
the State including the offices of Subordinate Civil Courts. F

These Rules did not expressly say that the 1947 Rul•
had been superseded, but clearly stated that the Governor had
--'· framed them in superaession of all existing rules and orders
on the subject for recruitment to the ministerial establish-
ment of subordinate offices under his control. Rules 9 to 12 G
and Appendix II of the 1947 Rules were thus 1uperseded. The
two reasons in support thereof are : ( i) that in the defi -
nition of the expression "subordinste office" only the offices
of the Secretariat, the State Legislature, the High Court and
the Public Service Coamf.ssion stood excluded, and (ii) the
H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] l S.C.R.

A ~
offices of the Subordinate Civil Courts were included in the
Schedule to those Rules. This is evidenced from the letter
dated 12th February, 1973, written by Joint Registrar of the
High Court to all the District Judges in the State. The High
Court on its administrative side also understood that rules 9
to 12 and Appendix II to the 1947 Rules had been superseded by
B the 1950 Rules.

In the meanwhile, the Governor had promlgated the
Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Eatabliohment (Amendment)
Rules, 1969 on September 20, 1969 &Mllding the 1947 Rules. The
existence of these bending Ruleo of 1969 was not taken note
c of by the High Court at the ti• when. the said letter was
iHued. The High Court waa following the 1950 Rulos even after
the pr0m1lgation of the 1969 Amending Rul• for purposes of
holding the C011petitive examination for recruit•nt to the
ministerial staff in the Civil Court•• Then Subordinate
Offices Minioterial Staff (Direct Recruit•nt) llules 1975
D were pro1111lgated by the Governor, in aupersession of all 1--
existing rules and orders on the subject. Rule 2 IUde thae
Rules inapplicable to the Secretariat, the office of the State
Legislature, Lokayukta, Public Service cOmission, High Colart,
the Subordinate Courts under the control and ouperintendence
of the High Court and all the establishments under the control
E of the Advocate-General. The 1975 Rulos prescribed the
qualifications and the pattern of a competitive examination
for purposes of recruitment in substitution of what had been
prescribed by the 1950 Rules.

After the proaulgation of the 1975 Rules, a competiti...e
F examination waa held by the District Judge of Kanpur in
September, 1981 and its results were announced on July 25,
1983. This competitive examination was held in accordance with
the 1950 Rules and the· 1969 Amending Rules were not followed.
Respondent No. 1, an unsuccessful candidate in the said
competitive examination, filed a writ petition contending that
G the competitive examination which had been held in accordance
with the 1950 Rules was an unauthorised one .and that it should
have been held in accordance with the 1947 Rules as &Mnded by
the 1969 Amending Rules. The High Court allGwed the petition
holding that the intention of promlgating the 1950 Rules vaa
only to pr•cribe a oyllabuQ different fl"Oll what had been
H praacribed in the 1947 Rules but the modification IUde by the
Q,P, SHUKLA v. AKHILESH KUMAR 857

' A
1950 Rules did not, however, mdify the rest of the 1947
Rules.

The High Court quashed the examination held in 1981 by
the District Judge of Kanpur and directed all the candidates
who had applied for the 1981 examination to appear for the B
fresh examination to be held by the District Judge of Kanpur.
In other districts where similar examinations had been held
under' the 1950 Rules and which had not been challenged, the
selection and appointment made in pursuance thereof were not
rendered invalid.

Allowing the appeal by one of the selected candidates in c
the Kanpur Examination to this Court,

llKLD : 1. The judgment of the High Court is set aside
and the writ petition is dismissed. The appellant and all
other successful candidates at the 1981 examination held in
Kanpur shall be appointed in accordance with the rules. If in D
any other centre, selections and appointments have been made
on the baais of the 1969 Amending Rules, they shall remain
undisturbed. (879 G-H; 880 A-Bl

2, The orders passed by the High Court in the connected
writ petitions Nos. 10224 of 1983 and 5073 of 1984 are set E
aside. (880 Bl

3. The 1947 Rules made appropriate provisions regarding
the recruitment of candidates to the posts in the ministerial
establishm.!nt in the Subordinate Courts in the former United
Provinces. They w~re continued to be in force till July 11, F
1950 when the 1950 Rules were pronulgated. They .were
applicable not merely to the ministerial establishments in
Civil Courts but to the ministerial establishments in several
other offices. Rules 9 to 12 of the 1947 Rules and Appendix II
to it stood superseded, The other parts of the 1947 Rules
remained intact. Tuna, the 1947 Rules were not superseded in G
their entirety by the 1950 Rules. The opening words 'in
supersession of all exiating rules and orders on the subjeet'
in the 1950 Rules only ref er to those 1111tter1 in the existing
rules which correspond to the utters dealt with by the 1950
Rules. The High Cout - , therefore, right in observing that
the whole of the 1947 lulaa did not come to an end on the H
pr01111lgation of the 1950 Rules. (875 B-H; 876 A-Bl
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 S.C.R.

A 4. The 1969 Amending Rules specifically amended the 1947
Rules, which appear to have been made after consultation with
the High Court. By these Rules, rule 5 of the 1947 Rules was
amended. Rule 5 dealt with the mini11111D scademic qualification
which a candidate for a post in the ministerial establishment
in a Subordinate Civil Court should possess. The other
amendment related to the substitution of the former Appendix
B Il which related to the subjects prescribed for the
competitive examination and the marks assigned to each of them
as it obtained before the 1950 Rules came into force by a new
Appendix. (876 A-Bl

5. Rule 11 of the 1947 Rules which required the District
c Judge to hold the examination in accordance with the former
Appendix II of the 1947 Rules, which also stood superseded by
the 1950 Rules in view of rules 5 and 7 of the 1950 Rules,
which dealt with the same subject, was however not replaced
nor a corresponding rule authorising the District Judge to
hold the competitive examination in accordance with the new
D Appendix Il was introduced by the 1969 Amending Rules into the
1947 Rules si1111ltaneoualy. While the new Appendix II again
re-appeared in the 1947 Rules prescribing certain subjects and
marks assigned to them, the authority who should hold the
competitive-examination was not again prescribed in the 1947
Rules. It was necessary to re-enact Rule ll of the 1947 Rules
E because it also stood repealed by the 1950 Rules which had
made provisions with regard to topic contained in the former
Rule 11. (876 F-H; 877 A]

6(a). The legal position that by the pro111Jlgation of the
1950 Rules, the former rules 9 to 12 of the 1947 Rules stood
F repealed by necessary implication is accepted even by the High
Court in its letter dated February 12, l973. Therefore, the
former Rule ll should have been re-enacted either in the same
for11 or with modification and brought back to life to give
effect to the new Appendix II, reintroduced in the 1947 Rules.
Without such reintroduction of Appendix 11 in the 1947 Rules
G by the 1969 Amending Rules would be meaningless and
ineffective as the authority who can hold the examination
remained unspecified. The method of selection of candidates
also remained unspecified. Whatever was provided in Rules 9 to
12 of the 1947 Rules, which was needed for conducting the
exaaination and selecting candidates was unavailable. Old
H
O.P. SHUKLA v. AKHILESH KUMAR 859

Rules 9 to 12 did not get automatically revived along with the
Aperu!ix II without an express provision reintroducing them.
A
The 1969 Amending Rules do not expressly state that the 1950
Rules would no longer be applicable to the ministerial
establishment of the Subordinate 'Civil Courts. They also did
not repeal the item referring to the Judicial Department -
Subordinate Civil Courts, which fourul a place in the Schedule
to the 1950 Rules. The discontinuance of the application of B
the 1950 Rules to the ministerial establishments of the
Subordinate Civil Courts can only be inferred by relying upon
the rule of implied repeal provided the said rule is appli-
cable. [877 A-Fl
6(b). An implied repeal of an earlier law can be
inferred only where there is the enactment of a later law,
which had the p0wer to override the earlier law arul is totally
c
inconaistent with the earlier law, that is, where the two laws
- the earlier law arul the later law - ·cannot stand together
because the two inconsistent laws cannot both be valid without
contravening the principle of contradiction. The later laws
abrogate earlier contrary laws. The principle is however
D
subject to the condition that the later law 1111St be effective.
If the later law is not capable of taking the place of the
earlier law arul for some reason cannot be impll!lll!llted, the
earlier law would continue to operate. To such a case the rule
of .Implied repeal is not attracted because the application of
the rule of implied repeal may result in a vacuum whiclt the
E
law making authority may not have intended. Appendix II
contains a list of subjects and marks assigned to each of
them. It is only in the presence of rule 11 one can understand
the meaning arul purpose of Appendix II. [877 F-H; 878 A-BJ
7. In the absence of an amendment re-enacting rule 11 in
the 1947 Rules, it is difficult to hold by the application of
F
the doctrine of implied repeal that the 1950 rules have ceased
to be applicable to the ministeri&l establishllents of the
Subordinate Civil Courts. The High Court overlooked this
aspect of the case and proceeded to bold that on the aere
reintroduction of the new Appendix II into the 1947 Rules the
examination could be held in accordance with the said G
Appendix. This Court is not in agreement with this view of the
High Court. [878 B-C]
8. There is also no uterial to show that after the 1969

-d-.
Aaending Rules, examinations were held in the different
districts of Uttar Pradesh in accordance with the 1947 Rules
as amended by the 1969 Aaending Rules. No body including the
H
High Cout appears to have taken notice of the
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19S6J 1 s.c.R.

A Admittedly, the examinations were held in 1981 in ac:cordance
with the 1950 llules and not in accordance with the 1947 llules
as amended by the 1969 Amending llules. The High Court treated
the 1950 llules as the existing llules in 1973 even after the
1969 Amending llules came into force. [878 C-F]
9. In the year 1981 in some other districts of Uttar
Pradesh also examinations were held as per the 1950 llules
B because the High Court expressed its reluctance to set aside
the results of the examinations in other districts and
confined the operation of its judgment to Kanpur district
only. The 1969 Amending Rules appear to have been ignored by
some District Judges. Having regard to the lacuna created by
the non-repr01111lgation of rule 11 of the 1947 Rules it hu to
c be held that there was no effective substitution of the 1950
Rules l>rought about by the 1969 Amending llules. The 1950 Rules
should, therefore, be held to be operating even in the year
1981. Hence the examination held according to them cannot be
held to be bad. [879 A-C]
10. 1950 Rules have not been repealed by the 1975 Rules
D in so far as the Subordinate Civil Courts are concerned.
Though Rule 20 of the 1975 Rules clearly stated that the 1950
Rules had been repealed, but the 1975 Rules did not apply to
the Subordinate Courts under the control and superintendence
of the High Court. Hence the 1950 Rules in so far sa they
applied to the Subordinate Courts continued to be in force.
E [879 C-D]
In the instant case, the petitioner in the writ petition
should not have been granted any relief. He appeared in the
examination without protest and filed the petition when he
realised that he would not succeed in the examination. The
High Court itself observed that the setting saide of the
F result of the examinations held in the other districts would
cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The
same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in
the District of Kanpur also. [879 E-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 2999 of
1985.
G From the Judgment and Order dated 12th April, 1985 of
the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3961
of 1982.
S.N. Kacker, R.B. Mehrotra for the Appellant.

Arun Deo Sagar and Pramod Dayal for the Respondents.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
O.P. SHUKLA v. AKHILESH KUMAR [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 861

A
VENKATARA!IIAJI, J. This appeal by special leave is filed
against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad
dated April 12, 1985 in Writ Petition No. 3961 of 1982 by
which the High Court of Allahabad quashed the results of the
competitive examination held by the District Judge of Kanpur
in September, 1981 for selecting candidates for appointment to B
the vacancies in Grade III of the ministerial staff in the
Subordinate Courts in the District of Kanpur.

Before the coomencement of the Constitution, recruitment
to the ministerial establishment in the Subordinate Civil
Courts of the United Provinces was regulated by the
Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 c
(hereinafter referred to as 'the 1947 Rules'). The said Rules
were prom.llgated by the Governor of the United Provinces on
August 1, 1947. The expression 'Ministerial Establishment' was
defined by rule 2(c) of. the 1947 Rules as the staff of the
subordinate civil courts consisting of ministerial servants as
~ defined in Fundamental Rule (17), Financial Handbook, Vol.II, D
Part II. According to the definition given in rule 2(e) of the
1947 Rules the expression 'Subordinate Civil Courts' included
the Courts of District and Sessions Judge, Additional District
& Sessions Judge, Civil and Sessions Judges, Civil Judges,
Additional Civil Judges, Munsifs, Additional Munsifs and
Courts of Small Causes subordinate to the High Court of E
Judicature at Allahabad or the Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow.
Rule 5 of the 1947 Rules prescribed the academic
qualifications which a person should possess for being a
candidate to a post in the ministerial establishment. It read
as follows
F
"5. Academic qualifications - No person who is not
already on the staff attached to a subordinate
civil court shall be appointed to a post in the
ministerial-establishment unless;

(a) he has passed at least the High School G
examination conducted by the Board of High School
and Intermediate Education, United Provinces or any
other examination which has been or may be declared
by the Governor to be equivalent thereto;

(b) he possesses a thorough knowledge both of Urdu H
and Hindi;
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 1 s.c.R.
A
(c) he possesses in the case of a candidate for the
post of stenographer a diploma or certificate from
a University or a recognised shorthand and
typeWriting institution, showing that he possesses
a speed of at least 100 wo-rds in shorthand and 35
words per minute in typewriting."
B
Rule 11 of the 1947 Rules which is relevant for the }-
purposes of this case read as follows :-

"11. The recruitment shall be based on the results
of a competitive examination, and an interview by
c the district Judge at the headquarters of the
judgeship. The examination and the interview sllall
be held in the manner laid down in Appendix n.

Provided that the Distrii:t Judge may delegate any
one or oore of the functions other than the
D
function of interviewing the candidates to a senior ~
civil judge or senior 111111sif in respect of the
examination held under this rule."

Appendix II of the 1947 Rules which contained the details
regarding the manner in which the competitive examination was
E
to be held read thus :-

"APPENDIX ll
(Vide Rule 11)

The examination shall be in three parts
F
(1) Compulsory subjects 350 marks :Total '--
(2) Optional subjects 50 marks 500
(3) Interview 100 marks

Compulsory subjects shall be -
G
(a) Translation from English into Urdu Total
(b) Translation from English into Hindi 200
(c) Translation from Urdu into English
(d) Translation from Hindi into English·
H
(e) Precis writing 50
(f) Dictation 100
O.P. SHUKLA v. AKHILESH KUMAR [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 863

A
Optional subjects -

Shorthand and typewriting 50

In the optional subjects no marks shall be awarded
to any candidate who does not reach the minimwn B
standard required· in the note to rule 14.

Any clerk who is already on the establishment and
is not qualified as a stenographer may sit.for the
examination in typewriting and shorthand alone and
will be eligible for appointment as stenographer if
he qualifies." c
By virtue of the provisions of Article 313 and Article
372 of the Constitution, the 1947 Rules continued to be in
force even after the commencement of the Constitution •. But on
July 15, 1950 the Governor of Uttar Pradesh pro111Ulgated rules
for the recruitment of ministerial staff to the subordinate D
off ices in the State of Uttar Pradesh including the -Offices of
subordinate civil courts in exercise of the po_werS coriferred
on him by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India in supersession of all existing rules and orders on the
subject. These rules were called the 'Rules for the
Recruitment of Ministerial Staff to the Subordinate Offices, E
1950' (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1950 Rules'). Rule 2 of
the 1950 Rules defined the term 'Subordinate Office' as
including all offices under the control of the Governor of
Uttar Pradesh other than those of the Secretariat, the State
Legislature, the High Court and the Public Service Commission.
Rule 3 of the 1950 Rules provided that the recruitment to the F
lowest grade of the ministerial staff in a subordinate off ice
shall be made on the basis of a competitive test. Rules 5,6 &
7 of the 1950 Rules read as follows :-

"5. Tests to be held annually - The competitive
tests shall be held at least once a year and at the G
time specified in the Schedule by each head of a
subordinate office for posts not requiring techni-
cal knowledge, e.g. stenography :

Provided that if the strength of any office does
not warrant annual recruitment, or recruitment in a H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] l s.c.R.

A
particular year, a competitive test shall be held
whenever it becomes , necessary to recruit a
ministerial servant to the office.

6, Subjects of the tests (1) The competitive
tests shall comprise a written test as well as an
B oral test.

(2) The subject of the tests and the maxill!lm marks
on each subject shall be as follows :

c Subjects Marks

Oral

(i) Personality 2S
D (ii) General Knowledge and suitability
for the particular post. 2S

Written

(i) Simple drafting so
E (ii) Essay and Precis writing so
(iii) Hindi so
Optional

(i) Typewriting and shorthand so
F (ii) English so
x x x x
Note :- A candidate 1111St take one of the two
optional subjects and may take both.
G
7. Selection of candidates - (1) On the results of
the test, the head of the subordinate Office shall
select a number of candidates sufficient to fill
the number of vacancies as ascertained in rule 3 ""'
and offer to them appointments as and when the
H vacancies occur, according to the order of merit
0,P, SlillKLA v. AKHILESH KUMAR [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 865
A
disclosed at the test.

(2) No one who has not been selected in accordance
with sub-rule (1) shall be appointed to any vacancy
unless the list of selected candidates is
exhausted. B

(3) Casual vacancies may be filled up by appointing
persons who have not taken the test but their
further retention shall depend on their taking the
next test and being selected in it."

In the Schedule attached to the 1950 Rules it was c
provided that for the off ices of the subordinate civil courts
the competitive examination should be held in August second
week every year. The relevant entry in that Schedule read as
follows :-
t D
"Judicial (A) Department

(1) Offices of Subordinate Civil Courts - August
second
week"

The 19:>0 Rules did not, however, expressly say that the
194 7 Rules had been superseded by these Rules. But it is
significant to note that the 1950 Rules clearly stated that
the Governor had framed them in supersession of all existing
rules and orders on the subject for recruitment to the
ministerial establishment of subordinate offices under his
F
_-( control. The clear effect of the 1950 Rules therefore was that
the 1947 Rules stood superseded by the 1950 Rules as regards
the subjects prescribed for the test and the manner of the
examination to be held for the purpose of selecting candidates
for the ministerial staff in the Civil Courts of the State of
Uttar Pradesh. To be precise, rules 9 to 12 and Appendix II of
G
the 1947 Rules were superseded. Tile two reasons in support of
1
the above view are : (i) that in the definition of the
expression 'Subordinate Office' only the offices of the
Secretariat, the State Legislature, the High Court and the
Public Service Commission stood excluded and (ii) the offices
of the Subordinate Civil Courts were included in the Schedule
H
to those Rules. On its administrative side the High Court also
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] I S.C.R.
A
understood that the 1950 Rules were applicable insofar as
recruitment to the ministerial staff in the Civil Courts was
concerned. This is evident from a letter written by Shri M.P.
Singh, Joint Registrar of the High Court of Allahabad to all
the Dist.rict Judges in the State of Uttar Pradesh on February
B
12, 1973 which is as under :-

"From:

M,P. Singh, B.A., LL.B.
Joint Registrar,
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
c
To

All the District Judges,
Subordinate to the High Court of
D • Judicature at Allahabad •

No. 14/Ve-4 Dated Allahabad February 12, 1973.

I Subject :- Recruitment to the establishment of the Subordinate
E
Civil Courts.

Sir,

It has been brought to tr' notice of the Court that
F
many District Judges face a lot of difficulties at the
instance of Employment Exchange in making recruitments to
their establishments. Broadly speaking the difficulties
pointed out by them are as under :-

l. Quite often the District Judges, on the list of
G
approved candidates having exhausted, have -to recruit
candidates directly without subjecting them to a regular test
prescribed under the rules for filling up casual vacancies and
for meeting the requirements of newly created additional
courts at short not ice and such candidates continue in the
employment of the civil courts for a considerable time, but
H
when a test is held for recruitment, the Employment Exchsng•
O.P. SHUKLA v. AKHILESH KUMAR [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 867

A
either refuses to sponsor the names of those candidates or
withholds their applications for one reason or the other and
consequently such candidates are prevented from taking up the
test.

2. Some times the Employment Exchange, while forwarding
B
the applications of candidates, withholding applications of
such candidates who appear to be deserving the suitable to the
District Judges without assigning any reason and this compel
the District Judges to recruit candidates only from aioongst
the candidates whose applications are forwarded by the
Employment Exchange.

In order to obviate the difficulties, the court haa
c
examined the whole scheme and the rules and within frame work
of the existing rules and Government orders on the subject,
the following procedure is laid down for our guidance :-

While following the procedure laid down in existing D
rules, published under Government Notification No.0-111/-
Xl-8-50 dated July 11, 1950 (which was adopted in supersession
of rules 9 to 12 of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts
Ministerial Establishment Rules 1947) and amplified in G.D.
llo. C>-2248/II-8-III-1950 dated August 30, 1950, the District
Judge should in addition himself advertise his requirement E
under intimation to the Employment Exchange and while doing so
he should take care to make it clear that all applications are
to be addressed to him and routed through the Employment
Exchange. The District Judge should further require that
candidates should send advance copies of their applications
direct to the District Judge which would go to ascertain F
whether all applications have been forwarded to him by the
Employment Exchange or not. However, if on receiving the
applications from the Employment Exchange, it is found that
applications of certain suitable candidates have been withheld
by the Employment Exchange, the District Judge may in his
discretion, permit such candidates to take the test as
G
contemplated in paragraph 7 of the G.O. dated August 30, 1950
referred to earlier.

ln the case of candidates who are appointed to fill
up casual vacancies without appearing in the regular test
prescribed under the rules and are already working on the
H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] l S.C.R.
A
staff of the civil court concerned, they should be treated as
departmental candidates and should be allowed to take the test
without any reference to the Employment Exchange in order to
enable them to qualify for regular appointment.

Yours faithfully,
B sd/- M.P. Singh
Joint Registrar 11

(underlining by us)

From the above letter it is clear that the High Court
C understood that rules 9 to 12 of the 1947 Rules including rule
II which prescribed the manner of examination and Appendix II
to the 1947 Rules which prescribed details regarding the
subjects in the examination had to be held had been super-
seded by the 1950 Rules.
D In the meanwhile in exercise of his powers under proviso
to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Governor had
pro'1lllgated the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial
Establishment (Amendment) Rules, 1969 on September 20, 1969
amending the 1947 Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1969
Amending Rules'). The 1969 Amending Rules read as follows
E
"No. 49(1)/69-Nyaya (Ka-2)

September 20, 1969.

In exercise of the powers under proviso to Article
F 309 of the Constitution, the Governor is pleased to
make the following rules with a view to amend the
subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment
Rules, 1947 publlshed with Government notification
No.2494/VII-612-40 dated August 1, 1947.
G RULES

1. Short title and commencement : (i) These Rules
may be called the subordinate Civil Courts
Ministerial Establishment (Amendment) Rules, 1969
(iii) They shall come into force with effect from
H the date of their publication in the Gazette.
0,P. SHUKLA v. AKllILESH KUMAR [VENKATARAMIAH, J,] 869
A

2. Amendment of rule 5: In the Subordinate Civil
Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as the said rules, for the
rules as set out in Column 1, the rule as set out
in column 4 shall be substituted. B

Column 1 Column 4 •
S. Academic qualifications Academic qualification •-
No person who is not already No person who is not
on the staff attached to a already on the staff atta- c
subordinate civil court ched to a subordinate Civil
shall be appointed to a post Court shall be appointed to
in the ministerial establi- a post in the ministerial
shment unless :- establishment unless,:-

(a) he has passed at least (a)he has passed at leaat D
the High School examination the Intermediate Examina-
conducted by the Board of tion conducted by the Board
High School and Inter- of High School and Inter-
mediate Education United mediate Education, U.P. or
Provinces, or any other ·any other examination which
examination which has been has been or may be declared E
or may be declared by the by the Governor to be the
Governor to be equivalent equivalent thereto.
thereto;

(b) he possesses a thorough (b)he possesses a thorough
knowledge both of Urdu and knowledge both of Urdu and F
Hindi; Hindi.

(c) he possesses in the case (c)he possesses in the case
of a candidate for the post of a candidate for the post
of Stenographer, a diploma or of Stenographer, a diploma
certificate from a University or certificate from a G
of a recognised Shorthand University or a recognised
and typewriting Institution, Shorthand and typewriting
showing that he possesses a Institution showing that he
speed of at least .100 words possesses a speed of at
per minute in Shorthand and least 100 words per minute
35 words per minute in in typewriting. H
typewriting.
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 1 s.c.R.
\.._

A 3. AMEN!t1ENT OF APPENDIX II 5. In the said rules for
the Appendix as set out in
column 1, the Appendix as
set in column 2 shall be
substituted.

Column 1 Column II
B --;----:-
Existing Appendix II Marks Appendix as hereby Marks ·-
substituted.
The Exsmination shall The Examination shall
be in three parts: be in three parts:
1. Compulsory subjects 350 I.Compulsory subjects 350
c 2. Optional subjects 50 2,0ptional subjects 50
3. Interview 100 3. Irtterview 100

Total 500 Total 500

D Compulsory subjects shall Compulsory subjects shall
be be
(a) Translation from Translation from English
English to Urdu 50 to Hindi 50
(b) Translation from (b) Translation from
English to Hindi 50 Hindi to English 50
E (c) Translation from Urdu (c)Hindi Drafting
to English. 50 (Added) 50
(d) Trartslation from (d)Hindi Precis writing 50
Hindi to English 50
(e) Precis writing 50 (e)English Drafting 50
(f) Dictation 100 (f)Dictation 100
F
OPTIONAL SUBJECTS OPTIONAL SUBJECTS
Shorthand &Typewriting 50 Shorthand &Typewriting 50
In the optional subject no In the optional subject
marks shall be awarded to no marks shall be awarded
G
any candidate who does not to any candidate who does
reach the miniDllm standard not reach the minimum
required in the note to standard required in the
~-
rule 14, note to rule 14.

Any clerk who is already Any clerk who is already
H
0,P, SHUKLA v. AKllILESH KmlAR [VENKATARAMIA'I, J,] Bil
• ,... A
on the Establishment and on the Establishment and
is not qualified aa, a is not qualified as a
stenographer may sit for Stenographer may sit for
the examination in typewriting the examination in typewri-
and shorthand alone and will ting and shorthand alone
be eligible for appointment and will be eligible for B
as stenographer if he appointment as Stenographer
qualifies. if he qualifies."

The existence of these Amending Rules of 1969 was not
taken note of by the High Court when the letter of the Joint
Registrar dated February 12, 1973 was addressed to all the
District Judges. It appears from the said letter that the High C
Court was following the 1950 Rules even after the protDJlgation
of the 1969 Amending Rules for purposes of holding the
competitive examination for. recruitment to the ministerial
staff in the Civil Courts. Then came the Subordinate Offices
Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975 (herein-
1 after referred to as 'the 1975 Rules') protDJlgated by the D
Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
The said Rules were promulgated in supersession of all
existing rules and orders on the subject. Rule 2 of the 1975
Rules which dealt with their application read as ·follows

"2, Application of these rules. ( l) These rules E
shall govern recruitme11t to all the ministerial
posts of the lowest grade, other than the posts of
stenographer (which are required to be filled by
direct recruitm~nt and which are outside the
purview of the Public Service Commission) in all
subordinate offices under the control of the F
Government but excluding the Secretariat, the
offices of State Legislature, Lokayukt, Public
Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh, High Court the
SUbordinate Courts under tbe Control and
superintendence of the High Court, the Advocate
General, Uttar Pradesh and of the establishments G
under the control of the Advocate General."

From rule 2 of the 1975 Rules which is set out above, it
it clear that the said Rules were not made applicable to the
Secretariat, the offices, of the State Legislature, Lokayukta,
Public Service Commission, High Court, the Subordinate Courts H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 1 s.c.R.

A
under the control and superintendence of the High Court and
all the establishments under the control of the Advocate-
General. The 1975 Rules prescribed the qualifications and the
pattern of a competitive examination for purposes of recruit-
ment in substitution of what had been prescribed by the 1950
Rules in respect of subordinate offices to which the 1975
B Rules applied. Sub-rule (1) of rule 20 of the 1975 Rules
expressly provided thus :

"20, Repeal and validation. ( 1) The Rules for the
recruitment of ministerial staff in the Subordinate
offices published under notificaion No.C-1119/IU-8
c 50, dated July 11, 1950 as amended from time to
time, shall be, and be deemed to have been repealed
with effect from June 5, 1974.''

It was after the promulgation of the 1975 Rules that the
competitive examination, with which we are concerned, was held
D by the District Judge of Kanpur. The said examination was held
in September 1981 and its results were announced on July 25,
1983. Respondent No. I and many others appeared in the said
examination. The competitive examination was, however, held in
accordance with the 1950 Rules. The 1969 Amending Rules were
not, however, followed. Respondent No.1 who had appeared for
E the competitive examination was not successful, Aggrieved by
the result of the examination he filed the writ petition
before the High Court of Allahabad, out of which this appeal
arises. His principal contention before the High Court was
that the competitive examination which had been held in
accordance with the 1950 Rules was an unauthorised one and
F that it should have been held in accordance with the 1947
Rules as amended by the 1969 Amending Rules. The High Court
held that it was evident that the intention of promulgating
the 1950 Rules was only to prescribe a syllabus different from
what had been prescribed in the 1947 Rules but the
~odification made by the 1950 Rules did not, however, modify
G the rest of the 1947 Rules. The High Court was of the opinion
that "therefore, it follows that the 1950 Rules being later in
time superseded 1947 Rules to the extent of its inconsistency.
After the enforcement of 1950 Rules competitive tests for
holding selection for appointment to the Ministerial
Establishment of Subordinate Courts was required to be held in
H accordance with the syllabus of 1950 Rules and not in
O.P. SHUKLA v. AKl!ILESH KUMAR [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 873

~ A
accordance with Appendix II of 1947 Rules. In other respects
the 1947 Rules continued to be et'fective."
;

The High Court then found that on the promulgation of the
1969 Amending Rules the syllabus prescribed by the 1950 Rules
could not be .followed. The High Court observed on this B
question as follows:
•
"The question, however, arises what was the effect
, of Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial
Establishment · (Amendment) Rules, 1969. As noted
earlier, the Rules of 1969 were framed by the
Governor, amending Appendix II of 1947 Rules. The C
notification dated September 20, 1969, under which
the Rules were enforced, does not contain any
reference to 1950 Rules. It appears that while
amending the 1947 Rules, the Governor failed to
notice that Appendix ll of 1947 Rules had already
been "uperseded by Rule 6 of 1950 Rules. llawever, D
it is evieot that the intenl:ion was to prescribe
different syllabus than that prescribed by 1950
Rules. 1here is .., doubt that by the 1969 Rules,
the Governor intended to lay down a syllabus for
holding competitive examination for selection and
appointment to the ministerial establishment of E
Subordinate Courts which was quite different to the
syllabus prescribed by rule 6_of 1950 Rules as well
as Appendix II of 1947 Rules. The 1969 Rules were
also framed by the Governor in respect of the same
subject matter as laid down by rule 5 of 1950
Rules. Since 1969 Rules were framed later ir. time F
by the same authority on the same subject, it Dllst
be held that the syllabus prescribed by the Amend-
ing Rules superseded the earlier rules on the
subject.

The High Court gave o~ more reason for holding that the G
1950 Rules were no longer in force in the year 1981. The High
Court was of the view that the 1950 Rules having been repealed
by rule 20 of the 1975 Rules they were no longer effective
A from June 5, 1974. It observed thus :

"The 1969 Rules, no doubt, purported to amend Rule H
5 and Appendix II of 1947 Rules. The language of
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] l s.c.R.

A
the Rules of 1969 indicates that apart from the
rules being in the nature of an amendment, the -~

Governor intended to lay down spedfic rules
prescribing educational qualifications and syllabus
for holding the examination for recruitment to the
Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate Courts. Even
8 if the 1969 Rules could not be effective during the
period the 1950 Rules were in force, the same would
be fully effective after June 5, 1974, the same
repeal of 1950 Rules. We, therefore, hold that in (
any event after June 5, 1974 recruitm~nt to the
ministerial staff of the Subordinate Courts could
c be held only in a accordance with 1947 Rules read
with 1969 Rules and not in accordance with 1950
Rules.

The High Court was of the view that since within the
judgeship of Kanpur the examination had not been held in
D accordance with the syllabus prescribed by the 1947 Rules as
amended by the 1969 Amending Rules all those who were
successful and selected for appointment had no legal right to
be appointed. It accordingly quashed the examination held in
1981 by the District Judge of Kanpur, the results of which had
been announced in 1983 by its judgment dated April 12, 1985.
E The High Court clarified that all the candidates who had
applied for the 1981 examination were, however, entitled to
appear for the fresh examination to be held by the District
Judge of Kanpur. It further observed that in the other
Districts of Uttar Pradesh where examinations had been held
under the 1950 Rules and which had not been challenged the
F selection and appointment made in pursuance thereof should be
treated as valid and would not be rendered invalid on the
ground that any other view would cause great hardship 'which
will not be in the public interest'. The result of the
judgment was that only those who had been selected or
appointed on the basis of the competitive examination held by
G the District Judge, Kanpur lost their appointments or the
right to be appointed but all other candidates who had been
selected on the basis of examinations held in accordance with
the 1950 Rules in the rest of the State of Uttar Pradesh
continued in their posts.

H Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the
-t

O.P. SHUKLA v. AKHILESH KUMAR [VENKATARAMIAH, J,] 875

-, A
appellant who was one of the selected candidates in the Kanpur
examination, has filed this appeal by special leave.

In this case the deficiencies in the drafting of .the
rules and the inadvertence on the part of the High Court in
complying with them pose some difficulty in arriving at a just B
solution. There is no dispute that the 1947 Rules made appro-
priate provisions regarding the recruitment of candidates to
the posts in the ministerial establishment in the Subordinate
Courts in the former United Provinces and they continued to be
in force till July 11, 1950. On July 11, 1950 the 1950 Rules
were promulgated. They were applicable not merely to the
ministerial establisllm<!nts in Civil Courts but to the minis- c
terial establishments in several other offices. They were
promulgated in supersession of all existing rules and orders
on the subject. They prescribed that recruitment to the minis-
terial staff in a subordinate offlce to which the said rules
were applicable should be made on the basis of a competitive
i test and also provided for the mode of calculation of D
vacancies, the period during which competitive examinations
should be held, the. subjects for the test and the marks
assigned to each of them and the method of selection of
successful candidates. They also provided that appointments to
higher posts in the ministerial staff of those offices should
be made by promotion. Rules 9 to 12 of the 1947 Rules and E
APPendix II to it which dealt with above topics thus stood
superseded. The other parts of the 1947 Rules which dealt with
the nationality, domicile and residence of the candidates,
their academic qualifications, character and physical fitness,
the appointing authority, probation and confirmation,
seniority, punishment, rate of pay, transfers and regulations F
of conditions of service remained intact since the 1950 Rules
did not make any provision as regards these topics. Hence we
do not agree with the argument urged on behalf of the appel-
lant that the 1947 Rules stood superseded in their entirety by
the 1950 Rules relying upon the opening words of the 1950
Rules which read thus· : G

"In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 309
of the Constitution of India, and in superaession
of all existing rules 8ad orders on the
subjeCt ••• ••••• ••••••••••• "
(Emphasis supplied) H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 S.C.R.

A
"In supersession of all existing rules and orders on the
subject 11 can only refer to those matters in the existing
-
rules which correspond to the matters dealt with by the 1950
Rules. We have explained earlier the other subjects in the
194 7 Rules which were not covered by 1950 Rules. Hence the
argument based on the assumption that the entire 1947 Rules
had been repealed by implication and no amendment could be
B
made to the 1947 Rules has to be rejected. The High Court waa, !-
therefore, right in observing that the whole of the 1947 Rules
did not come to an end on the pronulgation of the 1950 Rules.
The problem, however, does not get solved thereby as we shall
presently show.
c The 1969 Amending Rules specifically amended the 1947
Rules. These 1969 Amending Rules appear to have been made
after consult~tion with the High Court as can be seen from the
letter dated November 30, 1968 written by the Joint Registrar
of the High Court to the Joint Legal Remembrancer of the
Government of Uttar Pradesh. The 1969 Amending Rules were ,_
D
published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette dated October 9, 1969.
By these Rules, rule 5 of the 1947 Rules was amended. Rule 5
dealt with the mini11llm academic qualification which a
candidate for a post in the ministerial establishment in a
Subordinate Civil Court should possess. The other amendment
related to the substitution of the former Appendix II which
E
related to the subjects prescribed for the competitive
examination and the marks assigned to each of them as it
obtained before the 1950 Rules came into force by a new
Appendix which has already been set out above.

Rule 11 of the 1947 Rules which required the District
F
Judge to hold the examination in accordance with the former >-
Appendix II of the 1947 Rules which also stood superseded by
the 1950 Rules in view of rules 5 & 7 of the 1950 Rules which
dealt with the same subject, was however not replaced nor a
corresponding rule authorising the District Judge to hold the
competitive examination in accordance with the new Appendix II
G
was introduced by the 1969 Amending Rules into the 1947 Rules
sillllltaneously. The result was that while the new Appendix II
again re-appeared in the 1947 Rules prescribing certain
subjects and marks assigned to them, the authority who should
hold the competitive examination was not again prescribed in
H
the 194 7 Rules. It was necessary to re-enact rule 11 of the
O.P. SHUKLA v. AK!ULESH KUMAR [VENKATARAMIAH, J,] 877

A
1947 Rules because it also stood repealed by the 1950 Rules
which had made provision with regard to the topic contained in
the former rule 11. The legal position that by the
promulgation of the 1950 Rules, the former rules 9 to 12 of
the 194 7 Rules stood repealed by necessary implication is
accepted even by the High Court in its letter dated February B
12, 1973 referred to above. Therefore the former rule 11
should have been re-enacted either in tlie same form or with
modification and brought back to life to give effect to the
new Appendix II reintroduced in the 1947 Rules. Without such
reintroduction of rule ii, the mere reintroduction of Appendix
II in the 1947 Rules by the 1969 Amending Rules would be
meaningless and ineffective as the .ac::hority who can hold the c
examination remained unspecified. The method of selection of
candidates also remained unspecified. In effect whatever was
provided in Rules 9 to 12 of the 1947 Rules which was needed
for conducting the examination and selecting candidates was
however unavailable. It is .not correct to assume that the old
rules 9 to 12 also automatically revived along with Appendix D
II without an express provision reintroducing them. Here we
are not trying to be technical. It is to be noted that the
1969 Amending Rules do not expressly state that the 1950 Rules
would no longer be applicable to the ministerial establish-
ments of the Subordinate Civil Courts. They also did not
repeal the item referring to the Judicial Department - E
Subordinate Civil Courts, which found a place in the schedule
to the 1950 Rules. The discontinuance of the application of
the 1950 Rules to the ministerial establishments of the
Subordinate Civil Courts can only be inf erred by relying upon
the rule of implied repeal provided the sald rule is appli-
cable.• An implied repeal of an earlier law can be inferred F
only where there is the enactment of a later law which had the
power to override the earlier law and is totally inconsistent
with the earlier law, that is, where the two laws - the
earlier law and the later law - cannot stand together. 'nl.is is
a logical necessity because the two inconsistent laws cannot
both be valid without contravening the principle of contradic- G
tion. "The later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws. This
principle is, however, subject to the condition that the later
law IJllBt be effective. If the later law is not capable of
~ ..
taking the place of the earlier law and for some reason cannot
be implemented, the earlier law would continue to operate. To
such a case the rule of 111\)lied repeal is not attracted H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 S.C.R.

A
because the application of the rule of implied repeal may
result in a vacuum which the law making authority may not have
intended. Now, what does Appendix II contain? It contains a
list of subjects and marks assigned to each of them. But who
tells us what that list of subjects means? It is only in the
presence of rule '11 one can understand the meaning and purpose
B of Appendix II. "In the absence of an amendment re-enacting
rule 11 in the 1947 Rules, it is difficult to hold by the
application of the doctrine of implied repeal that the 1950
Rules have ceased to be applicable to the ministerial
establishments of the Subordinate Civil Courts. The High Court
overlooked this aspect of the case and proceeded to hold that
c on the mere reintroduction of the new Appendix II into the
1947 Rules, the examinations could be held in accordance with
the said Appendix. We do not agree with this view of the High
Court.

There is also no material before the Court to show that
D after the 1969 Amending Rules, examinations were held in the
different districts of Uttar Pradesh in accordance with the
1947 Rules as amended by the 1969 Amending Rules. No body
including the High Court appears to have taken notice of the
amendment. On the other hand examinations have been held
according to the 1950 Rules even after the above 1969
E amendment. The District Judge has filed a counter-affidavit
stating that the examinations were held in 1981 in this case
in accordance with the 1950 Rules and not in accordance with
the 194 7 Rules as amended by the 1969 Amending Rules. The
letter of the High Court dated February 12, 1973 shows that it
treated the 1950 Rules as the existing Rules in 1973 even
F after the 1969 Amending Rules came into force because it is
stated in that letter as follows :
'
''While following the procedure laid down in the
aisting rules, published under GovemEllt
Notification No. 0-1119/Xl-8-SO dated July 11, 1950
G (which waa adopted in superseasion of rules 9 to 12
of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial
l!atablis"-it Rules 1947) and ·amplified in G.o.
No~0-2248/II-S~III-1950 dated August 30, 1950,
.the District ·Judge should••••••••••••••••••••••••"

H (emphasis added)
O.P. SHUKLA v. AKHILESH KUMAR [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] · 879

A
Further it appears that in the year 1981 in some other
districts of Uttar Pradesh examinations were held as per the
1950 Rules. This is borne out by the observation of the High
Court in its judgment where it has expressed its reluctance to
set aside the results of the examinations in the other
districts and confined the -operation of its judgment to Kanpur B
District only. The 1969 Amending Rules appear to have been
ignored by some District Judges. In the circumstances having
regard to the lacuna created by the non-repromulgation of rule
11 of the 1947 Rules it has to be held that there was no
effective substitution of the 1950 Rules brought about by the
1969 Amending Rules. The 1950 Rules should therefore be held
to be operating even in the year 1981. Hence the examinations c
held according to them cannot be held to be.bad.

We do not agree with the view of the High Court that the
1950 Rules have been repealed by the 1975 Rules insofar as the
Subordinate Civil Courts are concerned. It is true that rule
20 of the 1975 Rules clearly stated that the 1950 Rules had D
been repealed. But the 1975 Rules did not apply to the subor-
dinate courts under the control and superintendence of the
High Court. Hence the 1950 Rules insofar as they applied to
the subordinate courts continued to be in force. The finding
of the High Court on this question is erroneous and is liable
to be set aside. E

Moreover, this is a case where khe petitioner in the writ
petition should not have been granted any relief. He had
appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the
petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not
succeed in the examination. The High Court'itself has observed F
that the setting aside ·of the results of examinations held in
the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who
had appeared there. The same yardstick should have been
applied to the candidates in the District of Kanpur also. They
were not responsible for the conduct of the examination.
G
For the foregoing reasons we feel that the judgment of
the High Court should be set aside. We accordingly set aside
the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the Writ Petition.
The appellant and all other successful candidates at the 1981
examination held in Kanpur shall be appointed in accordance
with the Rules. We further direct that they shall be given the H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 s.c.R.

A
salary, allowances, increments and seniority to which they
would have been entitled but for the judgment of the High
Court. But they will not be entitled to any salary and
allowances for the period during which they have not actually
worked. We also make it clear that if in any other centre,
selections and appointments have been made on the basis of the
B 1969 Amending Rules they shall remsin undisturbed.

The order passed by the High Court in the connected writ
petition No. 10224 of 1983 on its file is also set aside.
Similarly the oder passed in writ petition No.5073 of 1984 on
the file of the High Court is also reversed. There shall be a
C common order in these connected cases as directed in this
appeal.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

The High Court maY take steps, if it so desires, to
D prorulgate a fresh set of Rules of recruitment for· the staff
in the subordinate courts early.

A.P.J. Appeal allowed.