Recruitment rules for subordinate civil courts remained under the earlier regime where later amendments lacked effective implementing machinery.

The Supreme Court considered whether recruitment for ministerial staff of subordinate civil courts in 1981 was governed by the 1947 Rules as amended in 1969 or by the 1950 Rules, and held that the 1950 Rules continued to govern because the 1969 amendment did not effectively reintroduce the machinery needed to operate the revised Appendix II. It also held that the 1975 Rules did not repeal the 1950 Rules for subordinate civil courts, because those courts were excluded from the 1975 regime. The challenge to the selection therefore failed, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the selected candidates were entitled to appointment with consequential service benefits, excluding back wages for the period not worked.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the recruitment examination held in 1981 for the ministerial staff of the subordinate civil courts was required to be conducted under the 1947 Rules as amended in 1969 or under the 1950 Rules; (ii) Whether the 1975 Rules repealed the 1950 Rules insofar as they applied to subordinate civil courts.

Issue (i): Whether the recruitment examination held in 1981 for the ministerial staff of the subordinate civil courts was required to be conducted under the 1947 Rules as amended in 1969 or under the 1950 Rules.

Analysis: The 1950 Rules were held to have superseded only those parts of the 1947 Rules that dealt with recruitment procedure, examination, subjects and selection, while the remaining parts of the 1947 Rules continued to operate. The 1969 amendment reintroduced the revised Appendix II but did not re-enact rule 11, which was necessary to identify the authority and procedure for holding the examination. Without such reintroduction, the amended Appendix could not effectively function. The Court also noted that the 1969 amendment had in practice been ignored and that examinations continued to be held under the 1950 Rules, showing that there was no effective substitution.

Conclusion: The 1950 Rules continued to govern the 1981 examination, and the examination was not invalid for having been held under those Rules.

Issue (ii): Whether the 1975 Rules repealed the 1950 Rules insofar as they applied to subordinate civil courts.

Analysis: Although the 1975 Rules contained a repeal clause, they expressly excluded subordinate courts under the control and superintendence of the High Court from their application. As a result, the repeal could not be read as extending to the recruitment regime governing subordinate civil courts. The earlier recruitment rules applicable to that category therefore remained in force.

Conclusion: The 1950 Rules were not repealed for subordinate civil courts by the 1975 Rules.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Kanpur selection failed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the successful candidates were entitled to appointment with consequential service benefits, excluding back wages for the period not actually worked.

Ratio Decidendi: A later amendment or repeal affecting recruitment rules does not displace the existing regime unless it validly and effectively substitutes the earlier rules for the specific field concerned; where essential machinery for implementation is absent, the earlier rules continue to operate.

---