Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Rule 11 of the 1947 Rules which required the District Judge to hold the examination in accordance with the former Appendix II of the 1947 Rules which also stood superseded by the 1950 Rules in view of rules 5 & 7 of the 1950 Rules which dealt with the same subject, was however not replaced nor a corresponding rule authorising the District Judge to hold the competitive examination in accordance with the new Appendix II was introduced by the 1969 Amending Rules into the 1947 Rules simultaneously. The result was that while the new Appendix II again re-appeared in the 1947 Rules prescribing certain subjects and marks assigned to them, the authority who should hold the competitive examination was not again prescribed in the 1947 Rules. It was necessary to re-enact rule 11 of the 1947 Rules because it also stood repealed by the 1950 Rules which had made provision with regard to the topic contained in the former rule 11. The legal position that by the promulgation of the 1950 Rules, the former rules 9 to 12 of the 1947 Rules stood repealed by necessary implication is accepted even by the High Court in its letter dated February 12, 1973 referred to above. Therefore the former rule 11 should have been re-enacted either in the same form or with modification and brought back to life to give effect to the new Appendix II reintroduced in the 1947 Rules. Without such reintroduction of rule 11, the mere reintroduction of Appendix II in the 1947 Rules by the 1969 Amending Rules would be meaningless and ineffective as the authority who can hold the examination remained unspecified. The method of selection of candidates also remained unspecified. In effect whatever was provided in Rules 9 to 12 of the 1947 Rules which was needed for conducting the examination and selecting candidates was however unavailable. It is not correct to assume that the old rules 9 to 12 also automatically revived along with Appendix II without an express provision reintroducing them. Here we are not trying to be technical. It is to be noted that the 1969 Amending Rules do not expressly state that the 1950 Rules would no longer be applicable to the ministerial establishments of the Subordinate Civil Courts. They also did not repeal the item referring to the Judicial Department Subordinate Civil Courts, which found a place in the schedule to the 1950 Rules. The discontinuance of the application of the 1950 Rules to the ministerial establishments of the subordinate Civil Courts can only be inferred by relying upon the rule of implied repeal provided the said rule is applicable.. An implied repeal of an earlier law can be inferred only where there is the enactment of a later law which had the power to override the earlier law and is totally inconsistent with the earlier law, that is, where the two laws - the earlier law and the later law - cannot stand together. This is a logical necessity because the two inconsistent laws cannot both be valid without contravening the principle of contradiction. The later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws. This principle is, however, subject to the condition that the later law must be effective. If the later law is not capable of taking the place of the earlier law and for some reason cannot be implemented, the earlier law would continue to operate. To such a case the rule of implied repeal is not attracted because the application of the rule of implied repeal may result in a vacuum which the law making authority may not have intended. Now, what does Appendix II contain? It contains a list of subjects and marks assigned to each of them. But who tells us what that list of subjects means? It is only in the presence of rule 11 one can understand the meaning and purpose of Appendix II. In the absence of an amendment re-enacting rule 11 in the 1947 Rules, it is difficult to hold by the application of the doctrine of implied repeal that the 1950 Rules have ceased to be applicable to the ministerial establishments of the Subordinate Civil Courts. The High Court overlooked this aspect of the case and proceeded to hold that on the mere reintroduction of the new Appendix II into the 1947 Rules, the examinations could be held in accordance with the said Appendix. We do not agree with this view of the High Court.