S SATYAPAL REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1994-5-61
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on
May 06,1994
S Satyapal Reddy
Appellant
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
BANSHIDHAR SHARMA VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1997-11-69] [REFERRED TO]MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(SC)-2012-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
BHUNESHWAR SAHU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CHH)-2024-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
BASHEER VS. KERALA ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTORS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(KER)-1994-11-80] [REFERRED TO]
U P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. RAJEEV KUMAR BANSAL [LAWS(SC)-2008-6-24] [REFERRED TO]
VARGHESE MATHEW VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1996-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMESWARAN NAIR AND ANR. VS. ABDU RAHIMANKUTTY AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-1997-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
A SIRISHA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-12-199] [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH TYAGI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2021-1-130] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR B VS. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(KER)-1998-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
RANJITH VS. KANNUR UNIVERSITY [LAWS(KER)-2011-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
NAVDEEP KAUR GILL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2011-3-297] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANG LAL & OTHERS; RAM NARESH GURJAR & OTHERS; VINEET NAGAR & OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-8-81] [REFERRED]
M P A I T PERMIT OWNERS ASSISTANT VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2003-11-90] [REFERRED TO]
SUNEETA BHARTI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-126] [REFERRED TO]
DR. HEMANT NARAYAN RAY, SON OF SRI RAM SHRESHTHA RAY, RESIDENT OF QR. NO.30, DOCTORS COLONY, BARIATU, RANCHI, P.O. AND P.S. BARIATU, RANCHI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
IRSHAN RASHID PATHAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-263] [REFERRED TO]
BELSUND SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1999-8-114] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK SHARMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
V RAMA PRASADA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2008-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL KUMAR, VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-2-126] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH S/O SHRIRAMBAPU FATE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2018-9-75] [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-75] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
JAIVEER SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2023-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
JHANSI DIVISION JAL SANSTHAN KARMCHARI UNION VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
DIBYADARSHI BISWAL VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2010-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVALIK COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING VS. VEER MADHO SINGH BHANDARI UTTARAKHAND TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY [LAWS(UTN)-2024-6-53] [REFERRED TO]
PANNE SINGH VS. RSRTC [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
VIKASH KUMAR SINGH VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-1-91] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOKBHAI D NAIK VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2009-11-263] [REFERRED TO]
K.S. THARA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
U P CO OPERATIVE CANE UNIONS FEDRATIONS VS. WEST U P SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION 7 ORS [LAWS(SC)-2004-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
MEHSANA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-157] [REFERRED TO]
MUHAMMAD ALI & ORS VS. STATE OF J&K & ORS [LAWS(J&K)-2008-10-40] [REFERRED]
HARI DEVI VS. BHAGAT SINGH AND ANR. [LAWS(HPH)-1995-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHAM PREMJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2020-2-705] [REFERRED TO]
K. V. SAILESH VS. KPSC [LAWS(KER)-1995-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR PUROHIT AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN VS. R S R T C [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-9-63] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The A. P. public service commission had issued an advertisement on 20/4/1992 calling for applications for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors in A. P. Transport Subordinate Service. Though appellants had applied for the said posts, since they possessed only the qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, they were not called for interview. The appellants, therefore, filed O. A. Nos. 2757 of 1992 and batch in the A. P. Administrative tribunal questioning the competence of Degree in Mechanical Engineering or Degree in Automobile Engineering or Diploma in Automobile Engineering or any equivalent qualification as conditions for recruitment, contending that it was the central government which had been conferred with the power under Section 213 (4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short 'the Act', of prescribing the qualifications for appointment to any office or class of officers under the Act, which had prescribed the following :
"1.Qualifications: (1 Minimum general educational qualification of a pass in Xth standard; and (2 (i) a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (3-year course) or * * * (iii) a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education (3-year course) or (iv) any qualification in either of the above disciplines declared equivalent by the central government or State government. "when the appellants, had, become qualified to apply for and seek recruitment to the said posts, the prescription of qualification of graduation in Mechanical Engineering by the State government coming in conflict with the Act, stands superseded. The tribunal by its order dated 30/7/1993repelled the contention and dismissed the petitions. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
(3.)Shri K. Madhava Reddy and Shri Gururaja Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that as the Act was made under Entry 35 of List III of the viith Schedule to the Constitution read with Article 246 of the Constitution, the Act receives paramountcy and the central government alone is competent to prescribe the qualifications as to eligibility for recruitment as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors and the power of the State government to that extent gets eclipsed and the prescription of qualification of Degree in Mechanical Engineering becomes void since it runs in conflict with the qualifications prescribed by the central government. Therefore, the State rules become inapplicable. In support thereof, it was further contended that other State governments had fallen in line in prescribing the qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering prescribed by the central government and the State government of A. P. had not adopted that course. Since the State rule is in conflict with the central rule, the central rule would prevail over the State rules, by operation of Article 254 of the Constitution.
(2.)The A. P. public service commission had issued an advertisement on 20/4/1992 calling for applications for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors in A. P. Transport Subordinate Service. Though appellants had applied for the said posts, since they possessed only the qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, they were not called for interview. The appellants, therefore, filed O. A. Nos. 2757 of 1992 and batch in the A. P. Administrative tribunal questioning the competence of Degree in Mechanical Engineering or Degree in Automobile Engineering or Diploma in Automobile Engineering or any equivalent qualification as conditions for recruitment, contending that it was the central government which had been conferred with the power under Section 213 (4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short 'the Act', of prescribing the qualifications for appointment to any office or class of officers under the Act, which had prescribed the following :
"1.Qualifications: (1 Minimum general educational qualification of a pass in Xth standard; and (2 (i) a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (3-year course) or * * * (iii) a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education (3-year course) or (iv) any qualification in either of the above disciplines declared equivalent by the central government or State government. "when the appellants, had, become qualified to apply for and seek recruitment to the said posts, the prescription of qualification of graduation in Mechanical Engineering by the State government coming in conflict with the Act, stands superseded. The tribunal by its order dated 30/7/1993repelled the contention and dismissed the petitions. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
(3.)Shri K. Madhava Reddy and Shri Gururaja Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that as the Act was made under Entry 35 of List III of the viith Schedule to the Constitution read with Article 246 of the Constitution, the Act receives paramountcy and the central government alone is competent to prescribe the qualifications as to eligibility for recruitment as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors and the power of the State government to that extent gets eclipsed and the prescription of qualification of Degree in Mechanical Engineering becomes void since it runs in conflict with the qualifications prescribed by the central government. Therefore, the State rules become inapplicable. In support thereof, it was further contended that other State governments had fallen in line in prescribing the qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering prescribed by the central government and the State government of A. P. had not adopted that course. Since the State rule is in conflict with the central rule, the central rule would prevail over the State rules, by operation of Article 254 of the Constitution.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.