Case: P. Raghava Kurup  Vs. V. Ananthakumari

than what has been intended by the rule framing authorities. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention to a decision of this Court in Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v. Thakur Manmohan Deo& Ors. ([1966] 3 S.C.R.663). In this case a comparative study of two Acts i.e. The Bengal Ghatwali Lands Act, 1859 and the Courts of Wards Act, 1870 were considered and their Lordships observed that the Act of 1859 namely the Bengal Ghatwali Lands Act, 1859 was a special Act dealing with ghatwali lands. The Court of Wards Act, 1870 was a general enactment. Their Lordships held that special statute will override the general statute. In that context, their Lordships quoted from Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes which reads as under: A general later law does not abrogate an earlier special one by mere implication. Generalia specialibus non derogant, or in other words, where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier and special legislature indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any indication of a particular intention to do so. In such cases it is presumed to have only general cases in view, and not particular cases which have been already otherwise provided for by the special Act. 12. Therefore, the general principle which emerges is that the general law does not abrogate any special law by mere implication. This principle so far as the present case is concerned, is not of much relevance because here the intention of the Rule framing authority was to provide for the non-teaching staff an opportunity, in case eligible persons from the promotional quota are not available. Therefore, it is a particular provision for particular contingency which does not run counter to the general principles. The general principle as contained in Rule 43B is that first priority will be given to the categories of persons mentioned under sub-rule (1). In case, persons are not available, then this class of persons will also be eligible for promotion. This does not override the general provisions, it only caters for a particular contingency i.e. in the event the particular class of persons are not available, then another category of persons has also been made eligible. 13. Our attention was invited to a decision of this Court in S. Prakash & Anr. v. K.M.Kurian & Ors. [(1999) 5 SCC 624] their Lordships have very clearly held that if language of general provision is clear and unqualified, it prevails over special provision, and special provision must give way to general provision if legislative intent was to establish a rule of universal application. Their Lordships have further held by referring to an earlier decision of this Court in Ajoy Kumar Banerjee & Ors.v. Union of India & Ors. [(1984) 3 SCC 127] as follows The general rule to be followed in case of conflict between two statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier one. In other words, a prior special law would yield to a later general law, if either of the two following conditions is satisfied: (i) The two are inconsistent with each other. (ii) There is some express reference in the later to the earlier enactment. If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even though general, would prevail. 14. But so far as the present case is concerned, there is no such conflict. In fact the situation is to the contrary i.e. the particular law has followed the general law. The general law was to fill up the post mentioned in Rule 43B and in case if any person is not available in the category mentioned in Rule 43B, then persons belonging to the non-teaching category could be considered provided they possess necessary qualification. 15. Our attention was invited to a decision of this Court in The Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bhiar & Ors. ([1955] 2 S.C.R.603). In this case their Lordships have clearly mentioned at page 791 as follows: It is a cardinal rule of construction that when there are in a Statute two provisions which are in conflict with each other such that both of them cannot stand, they should, if possible, be so interpreted that effect can be given to both, and that a construction which renders either of them inoperative and useless should not be adopted except in the last resort. This is what is known as the rule of harmonious construction. 16. Both these provisions appear in Chapter XIV and both are dealt with the method of recruitment and so far as non-teaching staff is concerned it is provided under Note (1) to Rule 1 as a particular provision but that is not derogatory to Rule 43B. It is rather supplemental that if persons mentioned in Rule 43B are not available for promotion then persons in the category of non-teaching staff are available with requisite qualification then such person can be considered for appointment. These two provisions can be read together and the purpose for which this rule has been made can be achieved. Therefore, the Note 1 to Rule 1 read with Rule 43B can be read harmoniously, it will effectuate the intention of the rule framing authority. Therefore, this rule which was inserted in 1982, can be harmoniously read and it is not derogatory to Rule 43B. 17. In the case of P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by LRs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors. [(2004) 11 SCC 672] this Court held that harmonious construction should be preferred than the purposive construction and in the guise of purposive construction one cannot interpret a section in a manner which would lead to a conflict between two sub-sections of the same section. Therefore, the Constitution Bench by majority held that as far as possible harmonious construction should be preferred and this is what has been held by us above. 18.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]12. Therefore, the general principle which emerges is that the general law does not abrogate any special law by mere implication. This principle so far as the present case is concerned, is not of much relevance because here the intention of the Rule framing authority was to provide for theg staff an opportunity, in case eligible persons from the promotional quota are not available. Therefore, it is a particular provision for particular contingency which does not run counter to the general principles. The general principle as contained in Rule 43B is that first priority will be given to the categories of persons mentioned undere (1). In case, persons are not available, then this class of persons will also be eligible for promotion. This does not override the general provisions, it only caters for a particular contingency i.e. in the event the particular class of persons are not available, then another category of persons has also been made eligible13. Our attention was invited to a decision of this Court in S. Prakash & Anr. v. K.M.Kurian & Ors. [(1999) 5 SCC 624] their Lordships have very clearly held that if language of general provision is clear and unqualified, it prevails over special provision, and special provision must give way to general provision if legislative intent was to establish a rule of universal application14. But so far as the present case is concerned, there is no such conflict. In fact the situation is to the contrary i.e. the particular law has followed the general law. The general law was to fill up the post mentioned in Rule 43B and in case if any person is not available in the category mentioned in Rule 43B, then persons belonging to theg category could be considered provided they possess necessary qualification15. Our attention was invited to a decision of this Court in The Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bhiar & Ors. ([1955] 2 S.C.R.603).16. Both these provisions appear in Chapter XIV and both are dealt with the method of recruitment and so far asg staff is concerned it is provided under Note (1) to Rule 1 as a particular provision but that is not derogatory to Rule 43B. It is rather supplemental that if persons mentioned in Rule 43B are not available for promotion then persons in the category ofg staff are available with requisite qualification then such person can be considered for appointment. These two provisions can be read together and the purpose for which this rule has been made can be achieved. Therefore, the Note 1 to Rule 1 read with Rule 43B can be read harmoniously, it will effectuate the intention of the rule framing authority. Therefore, this rule which was inserted in 1982, can be harmoniously read and it is not derogatory to Rule 43B17. In the case of P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by LRs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors. [(2004) 11 SCC 672] this Court held that harmonious construction should be preferred than the purposive construction and in the guise of purposive construction one cannot interpret a section in a manner which would lead to a conflict between twos of the same section. Therefore, the Constitution Bench by majority held that as far as possible harmonious construction should be preferred and this is what has been held by us above.