Special recruitment rules prevail over later general rules unless a clear intention to override them is shown.

A later general recruitment rule under Article 309 did not automatically displace special recruitment rules governing the Motor Vehicles Branch, because the general scheme expressly saved matters otherwise provided by law and contemplated use of special rules for recruitment methods and qualifications. The special rules required promotion by selection to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Transport from eligible Regional Transport Officers, and the later insertion of Rule 3(2), though framed in non obstante language, was not treated as showing a clear intention to repeal or supersede that special regime. The governing principle stated was that a later general provision yields to an earlier special provision unless there is clear inconsistency or express override.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 overrode the Special Rules governing recruitment to the Motor Vehicles Branch and displaced the requirement of promotion by selection to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Transport.

Analysis: The General Rules were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and contained an express saving in Rule 1(3)(a) for matters otherwise provided by law. Rule 3(1) also indicated that where special recruitment rules existed, the methods of recruitment and qualifications were to be taken from those special rules. Rule 4(2) similarly worked within that scheme. The Special Rules specifically provided that the post in question was to be filled by promotion by selection from among eligible Regional Transport Officers. The later insertion of Rule 3(2), though couched in non obstante language, did not evince a clear intention to repeal or supersede the Special Rules. Applying the settled principle that a later general provision does not abrogate an earlier special provision by implication unless there is clear inconsistency or express intention, the Court held that the two sets of rules could coexist and that the Special Rules continued to govern the post.

Conclusion: Rule 3(2) did not override the Special Rules, and the appellant was entitled to have his case considered for promotion by selection under the Special Rules.

Dissenting Opinion: Yogeshwar Dayal, J. held that the later general rule contained a clear mandate to replace promotion by selection with seniority-cum-merit for posts other than Heads or Additional Heads of Department, and that the non obstante clause showed a legislative intention to supersede the Special Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A later general rule will not displace an earlier special rule merely because it contains a non obstante clause; the special rule continues to operate unless the later provision clearly shows an intention to override it or the two are irreconcilably inconsistent.

---