http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: S. PRAKASH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K.M. KURIAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/05/1999

BENCH: M Jagannadha Rao, M.B.Shah

JUDGMENT:

Shah, J.

       Leave granted.

     These  appeals  are filed against the common  judgment and  order  passed in Original Petition Nos.11764  of  1996, 6540, 12539 and 13871 of 1997 and W.A.  Nos.1842 and 1938 of 1996, 84 and 351 of 1997 by the Division Bench of the Kerala High  Court  on 16th April, 1998.  Persons selected  to  the post  of  Sales Tax Officers in the Agricultural Income  Tax and  Sales  tax  Department  by the  Kerala  Public  Service Commission  filed  petitions in the High Court.   They  were selected  and  included in the ranked list published by  the Commission  on  13th May, 1995 which was to expire  on  12th May,  1998.   As authorities failed to appoint them  against the  vacancies that arose in the quota earmarked for  direct recruits  and since only a limited number of candidates have been appointed, they approached the Court for a mandamus and consequential  directions.  The learned Single Judge of  the High  Court of Kerala arrived at the conclusion that Rule  5 deals  with the subject-matter governed by the Special Rules and  both  have  to  be harmoniously  read  and  understood. Therefore,  direct  recruitment  to  20%  of  the  vacancies provided  in  the Special Rules shall be worked out  on  the basis of the provisions contained in Note 3.  The Court also held that there is no repugnancy between Kerala Agricultural Income  Tax and Sales Tax Rules Category 3 and Rule 5 of the General Rules.  The said judgment and order was set aside in writ appeal.  The Division Bench of the High Court held that the amendment brought to the General Rules [Kerala State and Subordinate  Service  Rules] as per notification  dated  5th December, 1992 would take away the rights of the petitioners for  appointment  against 20% of the successive  substantive vacancies  arising  in the cadre of Sales Tax  Officers  and that  the  view taken by the Government  was  unsustainable. Secondly,  it  was held that amendment to the General  Rules was  in  conflict  with the Special Rules and  it  will  not hamper  the rights of persons arising out of Special  rules. Hence  petitions/appeals  were  allowed and  the  Secretary, Board of Revenue (Taxes) was directed to work out 20% of the successive  substantive vacancies for direct recruitment  as on  11th  August,  1987 and arising thereafter  as  per  the Special  Rules so as to enable the Public Service Commission

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

to   appoint  the  eligible   candidates.   That  order   is challenged  before  us  in  this appeal  by  special  leave. Before  appreciating  the contentions raised by the  learned counsel for the parties and for deciding the issue involved, it  would be necessary to refer first to the relevant  rules of  the  Kerala State and Subordinate Services  Rules,  1958 which  is  divided in Parts I, II and III.  Part I  contains definitions;   Part  II contains General Rules and Part  III contains  rules  applicable  to  each Service  or  class  of service.   Rules  2(8) provides that General  Rules  means rules  in  Part  II of these rules.  Rules 2 and  5  of  the General  Rules  are as under:- 2.  Relation to the  Special Rules:-  If any provision in the general rules contained  in the  part  is repugnant to a provision in the Special  Rules applicable  to any particular service contained in Part III, the later shall in respect of that service, prevail over the provision in the general rules in this part.

     5.  Method of recruitment:  - Where the normal method of  recruitment to any service, class or category is neither solely  by transfer but is both by direct recruitment and by transfer:  -

     (a) the proportion or order in which the Special Rules concerned  may  require  vacancies to be filled  by  persons recruited direct and by those recruited by transfer shall be applicable  only  to substantive vacancies in the  permanent cadre;

     (b)  a person shall be recruited direct only against a substantive vacancy in such permanent cadre, and only if the vacancy  is  one which should be filled by a direct  recruit under the Special Rules referred to in clause (a) and

     Â©         recruitment to all other vacancies shall be made by transfer.

     Note:   (1)  All  permanent  vacancies  and  temporary vacancies except those of short duration shall be treated as substantive vacancies.

     (2)  Leave  vacancies  and vacancies of  less  than  6 months  duration  shall  be treated as vacancies  of  short duration.

     (3)  Whenever  a  ratio  or percentage  is  fixed  for different  methods of recruitment/appointment to a post  the number  of vacancies to be filled up by candidates from each method  shall  be  decided by applying the  fixed  ratio  or percentage  to  the cadre strength of the post to which  the recruitment/transfer  is  made  and  not  to  the  vacancies existing at that time.

     The  aforesaid Note (3) was added by the Rules  called the  Kerala  State Subordinate Services  (Amendment)  Rules, 1992.   The object and reason for amending the said rule  is mentioned  in the Explanatory Note which inter alia provides that  for  various posts in the Departments  of  Government, appointments  are  to be made by direct recruitment  and  by transfer;  the vacancies are filled up on the basis of ratio or  percentage  fixed  in   the  respective  special  rules; Government   considered  it  necessary   to   clarify   that proportionate vacancies to be filled up by different methods should  be calculated on the basis of the cadre strength and not  on  the  basis  of  total  number  of  vacancies.   For

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

achieving the said objects the Rules were amended.  Further, the  aforesaid  Rules  are to be construed  along  with  the Kerala  Agricultural  Income  Tax and  Sales  Tax  Services (Rules).   These Rules provides that the said service shall consist of categories 1,1A, 2, 3 and 4.  Agricultural Income Tax  Officers and other are mentioned in Category 3.  Rule 2 provides that appointment to the various categories shall be made as follows:  - Category Method of appointment

     1.  ------ -----

     2.  ------ -----

     3.   Agricultural  income  tax 20% of  the  successive Officers,   Intelligence  substantive   vacancies  shall  be Officers,  Sales  Tax  filled  or   reserved  to  be  filled Officers,  Additional  by  direct recruitment  and  the  Law Officer,  Manager, remaining shall be filled or Agricultural Income  reserved to be filled by transfer Tax and Sales  Tax of  Assistant Sales Tax Officers, Appellate Tribunals, Sales Tax  Inspectors, Agricultural Superintendents in the  Income Tax  Inspectors, Agricultural Office of the Board of  Income Tax   and   Sales  Tax   Revenue  (Taxes)  and   Inspectors, Intelligency   Inspectors,   Managers  in   the   Check-Post Inspectors  and Junior Offices of the Deputy Superintendents of  the Kerala Commissioners of Agricultural Income Tax  and Agricultural  Income Sales Tax Subordinate Service.  Tax and Sales Tax.

     Notwithstanding  anything  contained In Rule 2(12)  of Part  I  of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service  Rules, 1958  persons  employed in the Agricultural Income  Tax  and Sales  Sub-ordinate  Service shall be allowed relaxation  of age   limit  up  to  five   years  to  compete  for   direct recruitment.   This  amendment shall be deemed to have  come into force with effect from 1st April, 1981.

     Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that Note (3)  to  Rule 5 of the General Rules was added in  to  bring uniformity  in calculating the ratio or percentage of direct recruit  and appointment by transfer in all services in  the State  of Kerala.  Therefore, the services that are  covered by  Special Rules also would be covered by Rule 5  including Note  (3).  As against this, learned counsel for the  direct recruits  whose names are appearing on select list submitted that  there  is conflict between Note (3) to Rule 5  of  the General  Rules and the method of appointment provided in the Kerala  Agricultural  Income  Tax  and  Sales  Tax  Services (Special  Rules)  as  amended.  Note (3) provides  that  the number  of  vacancies  are to be filled in from  the  direct recruits  and  transferees  by  applying a  fixed  ratio  or percentage  to  the cadre strength, while the  Special  Rule contemplates that the percentage or ratio should be fixed by taking  into account the successive substantive  vacancies arising  at  a point of time.  It is,  therefore,  submitted that  in view of the aforesaid conflict Special Rules  would prevail  particularly  because  of Rule 2 of  General  Rules provides that in case of repugnancy between the two, special rule  would prevail.  He relied upon the principle expressed in  the  maxim  generalia specialibus non  derogant  which means general things do not derogate from special things and generaliabus   specialias  derogant   which  according  to Osborns  Law Dictionary means special things derogate  from general  things.  Before appreciating the rival contentions,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

we  would  first  refer to the  established  principles  for interpreting  the  effect of amendment in Rule 5 of  General Rules  vis  a vis the special rules for  recruitment,  which prescribes  ratio  or  percentage of appointment  by  direct recruitment, and by transfer.  The law on this point is well settled  to  the effect that from the consideration  of  the general enactment if the intention of the legislature was to establish  a rule of universal application, in such cases, a special  provision  must give way to the general  provision. (Re:   Maharaj Shree Umaid Mills Limited vs.  Union of India [1963  Suppl.   (2) SCR 515 at 531].  Dealing  with  similar situation  in the case of M/s Dalmia Dadri Cement Co.   Ltd. vs.   The Commissioner of Income Tax [1959 SCR 729 at  737], this  Court  observed:   -  Now the  rule  of  construction expressed in the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant is well  settled,  and  we shall also assume in favour  of  the appellant  that the agreement Ex.A, is a special law in  the nature  of  a private Act passed by the British  Parliament, and  that  accordingly s.  3 of the Ordinance should not  be construed,  unless  the  contrary appears  expressly  or  by necessary  implication,  as repealing the provisions of  Ex. A.   But ultimately, the question is what does the  language of the enactment mean?

     If the language is clear and unqualified, general rule would  prevail.   Similarly,  in  the  case  of  Ajay  Kumar Banerjee  vs.  Union of India [1984 (3) SCC 127 (page  153)] the  Court dealt with the rule of interpretation with regard to  the  general law as well as the special law and held  as under:   -  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.

     The  Court  further  held:   From the  text  and  the decisions,  four  tests are deducible and these  are  (i)The Legislature  has the undoubted right to alter a law  already promulgated  through subsequent legislation, (ii) A  special law may be altered, abrogated or repealed by a later general law  by an express provision, (iii) A later general law will override  a prior special law if the two are so repugnant to each  other  that  they cannot co-exist  though  no  express provision  in  that behalf is found in the general law,  and (iv)  It  is  only  in the absence of  a  provision  to  the contrary  and  of a clear inconsistency that a  special  law will  remain wholly unaffected by a later general law.   See in  this  connection,  Maxwell  on  the  Interpretation   of Statutes, Twelfth Edition, pages 196-198.

     Further,  in the case of R.S.  Raghunath vs.  State of Karnataka and Another (1992) 1 SCC 335, the Court dealt with the  Karnataka  General  Services   (Motor  Vehicle  Branch) (Recruitment)  Rules, 1976.  In concurring judgment,  Kuldip Singh,  J.  observed:  Even the general law later in  time, prevails  over  the  earlier special law if it  clearly  and directly   supercedes  the  said  special   law     is   an unexceptionable proposition of law.

     In  the aforesaid case, Jayachandra Reddy,  J.referred to  the  decision  in Reserve Bank of  India  vs.   Peerless

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

General  Finance  and Investment Co.  Ltd.   1987(1)  S.C.C. 424  wherein  the Court observed:  interpretation  is  best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual and  relied  upon  the following paragraph 33  of  the  said judgment:   Interpretation must depend on the text and  the context.   They  are the basis of interpretation.   One  may well  say if the text is the texture, context is what  gives the  colour.   Neither can be ignored.  Both are  important. That   interpretation  is  best   which  makes  the  textual interpretation  match  the  contextual.  A statute  is  best interpreted  when  we  know why it was enacted.   With  this knowledge,  the  statute must be read, first as a whole  and then  section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word.  If a statute is looked at, in the context of  its  enactment, with the glasses of the statute-  maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases  and words may take colour and appear different than when  the statute is looked at without the glasses  provided by  the context.  With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase  and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act.  No part of a statute and no  word  of  a  statute  can  be  construed  in  isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place.

     Learned  counsel  for the appellant also  referred  to Craise  on Statute Law, page 381 which is as under :- (iii) Special  enactment  repealed  by   implication  if   utterly repugnant to subsequent general Act.

     But  the  rule  must not be pressed too far,  for,  as Bramwell  L.J.  said in Pellas vs.  Neptune Marine Insurance Co.  (1980) 5 C.P.D.  34, 40 a general statute may repeal a particular  statute/ And if a special enactment, whether it be  in  a public or a private Act, and a subsequent  general Act  are  absolutely  repugnant and  inconsistent  with  one another,  the courts have no alternative but to declare  the prior  special enactment repealed by the subsequent  general Act.   Thus in Bramston vs.  Colchester Corpn.  (1856) 6 E & B.  246, 253, 254 it was held that the provisions of a local Act,  under  which  certain arrangements had been  made  for maintaining borough prisoners in county goals, were repealed by  section  18 of the general Prisons Act 1842 for,  said Lord  Campbell  C.J., I think it was the intention  of  the legislature  to  sweep away all local peculiarities,  though sanctioned  by  special Acts, and to establish  one  uniform system  except  in so far as these are express  exceptions; and  Wightman J.  added It was intended to make one general law  superseding all local laws as to prisons and  repealing all local Acts.

     As  against this, learned counsel for the  respondents referred  to the decision in A.  B.  Krishna and Others  vs. State  of  Karnataka  and  Others [(1998)  3  SCC  495]  and submitted  that 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,  special  rule cannot be held to be  indirectly repealed  or  altered merely by force of such general  words without  any indication of a particular intention to do  so. From  the  aforesaid  discussion, it is clear  that  if  the intention  of  the rule making authority was to establish  a rule  of  universal application to all the services  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

State  of  Kerala  for which special rules  are  made,  then special rules will give way to the general rules enacted for that  purpose.   This has to be found out from the  language used  in  the rules which may be express or by  implication. If the language is clear and unqualified, subsequent general rule  would prevail despite repugnancy.  If the intention of the  rule-making authority is to sweep away all the  special rules  and to establish a uniform pattern for computation of the  ratio or percentage of direct recruits and by transfer, in such case, the special rules will give way.  On the basis of the aforesaid settled principles, let us interpret rule 5 as well as Note (3) and the method of recruitment prescribed under  the  special  rules.  Rule 5  quoted  above  provides method  of  recruitment  to any service, class  or  category where  the method of recruitment is neither solely by direct recruitment   nor  by  transfer  but   is  both  by   direct recruitment  and  by  transfer.   It  is  made  specifically applicable to the special rules.  Clause (a) provides that the  proportion  or  order  will   be  applicable  only   to substantive  vacancies  in  permanent   cadre;   clause  (b) provides  that  direct  recruitment shall  be  only  against substantive  vacancy in permanent cadre;  and recruitment to all other vacancies shall be made by transfer.  Note (1) and (2)  provide  that  all permanent  vacancies  and  temporary vacancies except those of short duration shall be treated as substantive  vacancies.  Note (3) specifically provides that whenever a ratio or percentage is fixed (in special Rules) for  different methods of recruitment to a post, the  number of  vacancies to be filled up by candidates from each method is  to be decided by applying a fixed ratio or percentage to the  cadre strength of the post to which the recruitment  is made  and  not  to the vacancies existing  at  that  time. Therefore,  the  entire Rule 5 deals with the special  rules which  provide  for  filling  up of  the  vacancies  to  any service,  class  or  category by direct recruitment  and  by transfer.   The language of Note (3) is crystal clear and is for  removal of any ambiguity by using positive and negative terms.   It applies to all special rules whenever a ratio or percentage   is   prescribed   in   the  Rules.    It   also emphathetically  states  that it has to be computed  on  the cadre strength of the post to which the recruitment is to be made  and not on the basis of the vacancies existing at that time.  Further, the special rules that provide for different categories  and method of appointment, mention for the posts of  Agricultural Income Tax Officers and Ors. in  category 3.   In the said category, method of appointment is (i)  20% of  the successive substantive vacancies is to be filled  or reserved  to  be filled by direct recruitment and  (ii)  the remaining  is  to  be  filled or reserved to  be  filled  by transfer.   But, how the successive substantive  vacancies of  permanent nature as provided in Rule 5 clauses (a),  (b) and  note  (1)  are  to be calculated  or  computed  is  not provided.   It nowhere provides that vacancies which are  to be  filled up should be calculated on the basis of  existing vacancies  at  a particular point of time or year or at  the time  of  recruitment.  For filling up the said  lacuna  and also  for  avoiding  any controversy as well as  to  have  a uniform pattern in all services with regard to filling up of vacancies  in all cadres in the State services on the  basis of  fixed ratio or percentage between the direct recruit and appointment  by transfer, Note (3) is added.  If we take  an illustration  that  cadre strength of a particular  post  is 1000  and  the recruitment is to be made to 100  substantive vacancies,  the  authority has to find out how  many  direct recruits  and  transferees  are holding the said  post.   If

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

transferees  are  holding 700 posts and direct recruits  are holding  200  posts  then in such a situation 20%  quota  of direct recruit is already filled up.  Therefore, appointment would  be  required  to made only by transfer.   As  against this,  if  direct  recruits are holding only 100  posts  and remaining  800 posts are held by transferees, then 100 posts would  be required to be filled up by direct recruit (20% of 1000) and remaining 100 posts would be required to be filled up  by  transfer.   This  would   remove  the  imbalance  of percentage  between  direct recruit and the transferees  for most  of  the  times.  The result would be the  question  of reserving  the post either for the direct recruit or for the transferee   might  not  survive,  as  all  throughout   the proportion or ratio would be maintained.  Further, by adding Note  (3)  to  Rule 5, the object of the Government  was  to achieve uniformity of calculating the successive substantive vacancies  for  appointment.   The learned counsel  for  the respondent  vehemently  contended that as per Rule 2 of  the General  Rules  quoted  above, if there  is  any  repugnancy between the general rule and the special rules applicable to any  particular service, then, special rules are to  prevail in  respect  of  said  service over the  provisions  in  the general  rules.  It is submitted that Rule 5 and Note (3) of that  Rule are part of the general rule and, therefore,  the special rule in the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax  Services  prescribing  method   of  appointment   would prevail.   It  is contended that the said rule  specifically provides  that  20% of the successive vacancies  shall  be filled up by direct recruit and remaining shall be filled by transfer.   It  is,  therefore,   submitted  that   whenever substantive  vacancies are to be filled in, 20% of the  said vacancies are required to be filled in by direct recruit and remaining  vacancies  are  required  to   be  filled  in  by transfer.   He referred to the maxim generalia specialiabus non derogant meaning thereby general things do not derogate from  special things and generaliabus specialias  derogant which means special things derogate from general things.  In our view, the aforesaid submission is without any substance. As discussed above, rule 5 of the General Rule is enacted to govern   special  rules  with  regard   to  the  method   of recruitment  in  cases  when   appointments  are  by  direct recruitment  and by transfer in any substantive vacancies in permanent  cadre.  The language used in Rule 5 is clear  and unqualified.   The  intention of the legislature  of  adding Note 3 is also clear and is added to fill in existing lacuna in  the method of recruitment provided in special rules.  As stated  above,  for appointment to category 3, i.e.  to  the post  of Agricultural Income Tax Officers and others, method of  appointments  only  provides   that  20%  of  successive substantive  vacancies  shall  be filled or reserved  to  be filled by direct recruitment and the remaining vacancies are to  be filled or reserved to be filled by transfer.  On what basis the substantive vacancies are to be determined was not provided  and  therefore  that lacuna is filled  up  by  the aforesaid Note (3) in Rule 5.  In any case, even if there is repugnancy  or  inconsistency,  the law is  settled  to  the effect that general rule later in time prevails over earlier special  rule  if  it clearly and  directly  supercedes  the special rule.  It is also well settled that special rule can be  altered,  abrogated  or repealed by general rule  by  an express  provision.   In the present case, the  language  of Note  (3)  specifically makes it applicable to general  rule stating  whenever  the  ratio or percentage is  fixed  for different  methods  of  recruitment, the  method  prescribed therein  would  apply.  So the word whenever  would  cover

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

special  rule prescribing ratio or percentage of appointment between  direct recruit and by transfer and the Rule  making authority has specifically provided that ratio or percentage for the vacancies is to be computed on the basis not to the vacancies  existing  at that time, but on the basis of  the cadre  strength.  Hence, there is no question of  repugnancy between  Rule  5,  Note (3) and the  method  of  appointment provided  in  special rules.  Further, in the present  case, Note  3  was  added by amending Rules with effect  from  5th December,  1992  while  list of persons selected  by  Public Service   Commission  for  appointment  to  the  Cadre   was published  on  13th May, 1995.  Therefore, persons who  were selected  and whose names are included by the Public Service Commission  in  the select list would have no right  to  say that their recruitment should be governed by the Rules which were existing prior to 1992.  However, it has been contended by  learned counsel for the selected candidates whose  names are appearing in the Select List that process of recruitment started  on  11th  August,  1987  when  the  Public  Service Commission  issued  advertisement inviting applications  for the  post  of Sales Tax Officers by direct recruitment  (The number  of  notified  vacancies  was   16)  and  that  their appointments  should  be  made  on the basis  of  the  Rules existed  at  the  relevant time.  It is submitted  that  the amended  Rules  would govern the future selection  and  will have  no retrospective effect.  In our view, in the  present case, there is no question of giving retrospective effect to the  Rules  which are amended in 1992.  Its effect is to  be given after its amendment and in the present case after 1995 when  the  selection process was over.  It is to  be  stated that the addition of Note 3 does not deal with the selection process  which was started in 1987 and the selection process is  not altered or amended.  It is also well settled that  a candidate  selected and kept on select list does not acquire any absolute right to appointment.  Therefore, it is open to the Government to decide how many selected candidates are to be  appointed in service on the basis of ratio or percentage prescribed  in  the service rules.  Learned counsel for  the respondents  have relied upon the G.O.M.S.  No.   233/85/GAD dated 27.6.1985.  That G.O.  reads as follows:  -  The G.O. read  above  lays down among other things, that  any  change made  in  the qualifications, age or method  of  appointment etc.   prescribed  for  a  post   after  the  issue  of  the notification  by  the  Kerala   Public  Service   Commission inviting applications in the Gazette in respect of that post will  be given effect to for future selections only.  In the letter  read  above  the Secretary,  Kerala  Public  Service Commission  has advised that the clarification may be issued regarding the scope and ambit of the above Government order.

     2.   Government have accepted the advice of the Public Service  Commission  and  are  please to  clarify  that  the changes  in  qualifications, method of appointment,  age  or other  conditions of recruitment introduced after the  issue of  a  notification for selection to the post by the  Public Service  Commission  will  be  given  effect  to  in  future selections only, except in cases where the changes announced amount to concessions or exemptions to which persons already included  in  the  ranked  list   as  well  as   prospective candidates  will  be entitled and where the changes  are  of such  a  minor nature that they can be given effect  without the necessity of upsetting any selection procedure under way or of revising the ranked lists already prepared.

     3.   The  sub-para  (2) of the G.O.  read  above  will

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

stand modified to the above extent.

     From  the aforesaid G.O., it is clear that during  the selection process, Government had accepted the advice of the Public   Service   Commission  that   the  changes  in   the qualifications,   method  of  appointment,   age  or   other conditions  of  recruitment  introduced after the  issue  of notification for selection to the post by the Public Service Commission will be given effect to in future selections only with  an exception as mentioned therein.  As stated earlier, in  the present case selection process was not over till the list  of  selected  candidates was published by  the  Public Service  Commission on 13th May, 1995 and the impugned  Note (3)  does not change qualifications, method of  appointment, age  or  other conditions of recruitment.  It only fills  up the  lacuna  or  clarifies   the  ambiguity  prevailing  for computation of ratio or percentage for appointment by direct recruitment  and  by  transfer.  Because  of  the  aforesaid factual  position,  in  our  view, it is  not  necessary  to discuss  judgments  cited  by the learned  counsel  for  the respondents.   However,  we  would  refer  to  one  decision rendered   by  this  Court  in  Rajasthan   Public   Service Commission  vs.   Chanan Ram and Another [(1998) 4 SCC  202] wherein  after  considering the decision in the  P.Ganeshwar Rao vs.  State of Andhra Pradesh [(1998) Supp SCC 740], this Court   held  that  if   the  recruitment  rules  underwent amendment  prior  to  actual filling up  of  the  advertised posts,  the  amended  rules would apply.   The  Court  also referred  to  a three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court  in Jai  Singh  Dalal vs.  State of Haryana [1993 Supp  (2)  SCC 600]  wherein it has been held that when the special process of  recruitment  had not been finalised and culminated  into select  list,  the  candidate  did not  have  any  right  to appointment and that recruitment process could be stopped by the  Government  at  any time before a  candidate  has  been appointed  and  as the candidate has no vested right to  get the  process  completed except that the Government could  be required  to justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14.   In this view of the matter, we hold that the amendment brought  to the general rules (Kerala State and  Subordinate Services Rules) by the Notification dated 5th December, 1992 or as pointed out when it was published in the gazette, i.e. 2nd  February,  1993 is not repugnant to special  rules  and that  there is no question of taking away the rights of  the candidates   who  were  selected  by  the   Public   Service Commission.   In  the result, the appeals are  allowed,  the impugned  judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is set  aside and the order passed by the learned Single  Judge is restored.