It is this order which is questioned in this appeal.
Shri P.P. Rao, learned companynsel appearing for the appel lant companytended that the Special Rules are exclusively meant to govern the recruitment and promotion of officers of various cadres of the Motor Vehicle Department and the General Rules which generally regulate the recruitment of all State Civil Services broadly even though later in point of time cannot abrogate the Special Rules and that they are number meant to do so since the Special Rules also are very much in force inasmuch as they are number superseded.
2 herein, was illegal and to direct the respondent No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.8.1990 of the Karna taka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No.
1 to companysider the case of the appellant for promotion to the cadre of Deputy Transport Commissioner with all companysequential benefits.
In the year 1981 the appellant was promoted as Regional Trans port Officer.
Some of the General Rules of 1977 were amended in the year 1982 and Sub Rule 2 of Rule 3 was inserted in the said Rules.
This appeal by Special Leave has been filed by Sri R.S. Raghunath against the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 9th August, 1990.
3155/89 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal questioning the promotion of second respondent on the ground that the promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Transport should be by selec tion from the cadre of Regional Transport Officers and number merely on seniority cum merit basis.
P. Rao, S.R. Bhat, Alok Aggarwal and Ms. Mohini L. Bhat 1or the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
I have given my thoughtful companysideration to the reason ing adopted by the learned Judges in their respective judg ments.
The Special Rules came into force on or about 10th December, 1976 on the publication of the same in the Karna taka Gazette Extraordinary .
Chidambaram, M. Veerappa N.P. and K.H Nobin Singh for the Respondents.
The principal question involved is whether SubRule 2 of Rule 3 of Karna taka Civil Services General Recruitment Rules, 1977 General Rules for short has the overriding effect over the Karnataka General Service Motor Vehicles Branch Recruitment Rules, 1976 Special Rules for short .
Before the Tribunal the appellant sought a declaration that the promo tion of Shri I.K. Devaiah, respondent No.
The appellant was appointed initially as Inspector of Motor Vehicle and was promoted as Assistant Regional Transport Officer in the year 1976 in which year the Special Rules were framed.
5617 of 1990.
3155 of 1989.
With utmost respect to the erudite judgment prepared by Yogeshwar Dayal, J. I prefer the reasoning and the companyclusions reached by K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. and agree with the judgment proposed by him.
For a better appreciation of the question it becomes necessary to state few facts.
Shri P. Chidambaram, learned companynsel for the State of Karnataka companytended that the number obstante clause in Rule 3 2 of the General Rules which was introduced later clearly indicate the intention of he Legislature to supersede the Special Rules and promotions from the cadre of Regional Transport Officer to that of Deputy Commissioner of Transport companyld only be on the basis of seniority cam merit and number by election.
JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. This appeal is directed against the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore dismiss ing an application filed by the appellant.
In the year 1989 the second respondent was promoted as Deputy Commissioner of Transport on seniority cure merit basis alone as purported to have been provided in new Rule 3 2 of General Rules.
Being aggrieved by the same the appellant filed an Application No.
His application was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that Rule 3 2 of General Rules which was introduced later overrides the earlier Special Rules.
