State may prescribe higher recruitment qualifications where Central law fixes only minimum standards, without repugnancy.

Where a Central notification under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes only minimum qualifications for recruitment in the State transport department, the State may validly require higher qualifications under its service rules made under Article 309, because the power to appoint includes the ancillary power to prescribe fit recruitment standards. Repugnancy under Article 254 arises only when the Central and State provisions are so inconsistent that they cannot operate together. On that basis, the State rules were held consistent with the Central minimum standard and not void for conflict.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Government could prescribe qualifications higher than the minimum qualifications notified by the Central Government under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for recruitment to posts in the State transport department, and whether the State s were repugnant to the Central rules so as to be void under Article 254 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 distinguishes between the State Government's power to establish the Motor Vehicles Department and appoint officers under sub-section (1), and the Central Government's power under sub-section (4) to prescribe only the minimum qualifications for such officers. The power to appoint necessarily includes the ancillary power to select fit persons and to prescribe qualifications for recruitment, so long as the State prescription does not fall below the minimum standard fixed by the Central Government. The constitutional doctrine of repugnancy applies only where the two provisions are so inconsistent that they cannot operate harmoniously. Here, the Central notification fixed only a minimum standard, leaving scope for the State to prescribe higher qualifications under the service rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The State rules therefore operated consistently with the Central rules and did not create any irreconcilable conflict.

Conclusion: The State Government was competent to prescribe higher qualifications, the State recruitment rules were valid, and there was no repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Central law prescribes only minimum qualifications for appointment, the State may, in the absence of irreconcilable inconsistency, prescribe higher qualifications under its service rules, and such a prescription does not amount to repugnancy.

---