GANGARAMversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

                         [2019] 5 S.C.R. 1163                               1163


                             GANGARAM                                       A
                                   v.
                   THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                    (Civil Appeal No.1690 of 2010)
                         JANUARY 24, 2019                                   B

        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                 HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
       Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959 – r. 68(2),
(2-A) – Advertisement issued inviting applications, inter alia, for one     C
post of Projectionist, stipulating that the candidate must inter alia
possess license for operating cinema projector – Appellant and the
third respondent were the only candidates – Appellant appointed –
Challenged by third respondent mainly on the ground that the
appellant did not fulfil the qualifications as he did not possess license
for cinema operator – Single Judge dismissed the writ petition –            D
Division Bench quashed the appointment of the appellant – On
appeal, held: r.68, sub-r. (2-A) of the 1959 Rules provides that an
operator may obtain certificate from the Electrical Inspector, by
presenting himself within period of three months from the date of
his appointment – Sub-r. (2-A) of r. 68 does not require possession         E
of license on date of appointment – Thus, acquisition within three
months of the appointment is permissible – Appellant acquired the
license after the date of his appointment – This amounts to a valid
compliance with the express provisions of sub-r. (2-A) of r. 68 –
After notice in the present proceedings was issued, status quo was
directed to be maintained – Pending disposal of the appeal, the             F
interim order was directed to continue – Consequently, the appellant
has continued to work in the post of Projectionist since his
appointment in Oct.1991 and is in service for the last 28 years –
Division Bench in error in setting aside the appointment of the
appellant – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Consequently,            G
the writ petition filed by the third respondent stands dismissed.
       An advertisement was issued by the Principal and
Controller of Dr. S.N. Medical College and Associated Group of
Hospitals at Jodhpur, inviting applications, inter alia, for one post
                                                                            H
                                  1163
1164            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 5 S.C.R.


 A     of Projectionist. The advertisement stipulated that the candidate
       must inter alia possess license for operating cinema projector.
       Appellant and the third respondent were the only candidates.
       The appellant was appointed on the post of Projectionist. Third
       respondent challenged the appellant’s appointment, by filing writ
       petition before the High Court, mainly on the ground that the
 B
       appellant did not fulfil the qualifications as he did not possess the
       license for cinema operator. Single Judge dismissed the writ
       petition. Division Bench reversed the said order and quashed
       the appointment of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal.
             Allowing the appeal, the Court
 C
              HELD: 1.1 Sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 68, Rajasthan Cinemas
       (Regulation) Rules, 1959 provides that an operator may obtain a
       certificate from the Electrical Inspector, by presenting himself
       within a period of three months from the date of his appointment.
       Sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 68 does not require possession of a license
 D     on date of appointment. Acquisition within three months of the
       appointment is permissible under sub-rule (2-A). The appellant
       acquired the license after the date of his appointment. This
       amounts to a valid compliance with the express provisions of
       sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 68. [Para 13][1167-G-H; 1168-A]
 E           1.2 Notice was issued in these proceedings on 7 July 2008
       and status quo was directed to be maintained. Leave was granted
       on 8 February 2010 and, pending disposal of the appeal, the interim
       order was directed to continue. In consequence, the
       appellant has continued in service since the date of his
 F     appointment in October 1991 and is in service for the last 28
       years. [Paras 9, 14][1168-B]
             1.3 The Division Bench of the High Court was in error in
       setting aside the appointment of the appellant and interfering
       with the judgment of the Single Judge. The judgment of the High
 G     Court is set aside. In consequence, the writ petition filed |by
       the third respondent shall stand dismissed. [Paras 15, 16]
       [1168-B-D]



 H
            GANGARAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                  1165


      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1690                   A
of 2010
      From the Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2008 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.
956 of 1999
       Shekhar Prit Jha, Ms. Susmita Mahala, Ms. Himani Mishra, Advs.       B
for the Appellant.
      G. P. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Ms. Vaidruti Mishra, Adarsh Tiwari,
Milind Kumar, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                            C
      DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
      1 . This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dated 2 April 2008.
       2. In a Special Appeal, the Division Bench set aside the judgment
                                                                            D
of a learned Single Judge dated 5 August 1998.
      3. An advertisement was issued by the Principal and Controller of
Dr. S.N. Medical College and Associated Group of Hospitals at Jodhpur
on 26 August 1991 inviting applications, inter alia, for one post of
Projectionist.
                                                                            E
      4. The advertisement stipulated that the candidate must possess a
higher secondary or equivalent qualification and a license for operating
a cinema projector. The last date for filing application forms was 25
September 1991. The appellant and the third respondent were the only
candidates. The appellant was appointed on the post of Projectionist.
                                                                            F
       5. Both the appellant and the third respondent were interviewed
on 10 October 1991. The appellant was placed at Sr. No. 1 of the select
list. As a result, he was appointed.
      6. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed
by the third respondent before the High Court for challenging the           G
appointment of the appellant. The main ground of challenge was that the
appellant did not fulfill the qualifications because he did not possess a
license for a cinema operator.
     7. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the
ground that the license for a cinema operator is not preceded by any
                                                                            H
1166             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 5 S.C.R.


 A     course of certification and is only a recognition of skill. According to the
       learned Single Judge, once the employer has made a due assessment of
       the skill of a candidate, the appointment is not vitiated. The writ petition
       was dismissed.
               8. While reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the
 B     Division Bench held that under the terms of the advertisement,
       applications were required to be received by 25 September 1991. The
       application in the opinion of the Division Bench should have been
       accompanied by necessary certificates establishing academic and
       technical qualifications. The Division Bench held that the appellant did
       not, together with his application, furnish any document showing that he
 C     held a license for operating cinema projectors. On this ground, the Division
       Bench came to the conclusion that the appellant was not qualified on the
       last date for the submission of applications. The appointment of the
       appellant was quashed and a direction was issued to consider the
       candidature of the third respondent on the basis of his eligibility on the
 D     relevant date and to give him an appointment if he is otherwise found
       suitable.
              9. Notice was issued in these proceedings on 7 July 2008 and
       status quo was directed to be maintained. Leave was granted on 8
       February 2010 and, pending disposal of the appeal, the interim order
 E     was directed to continue. In consequence, the appellant has continued
       to work in the post of Projectionist since his appointment on 22 October
       1991.
              10. The basic issue which falls for consideration is whether the
       appellant did or did not fulfill the requirement of holding a license for a
 F     cinema operator. The post for which the application was made was that
       of a projectionist.
             11. The third respondent, who appears in person, has submitted
       before this Court that under Rule 68(2) of the Rajasthan Cinemas
       (Regulation) Rules, 1959, it is necessary to possess such a license.
 G           12. In view of this submission, it is necessary to advert to the
       provisions of Rule 68. Rule 68 provides as follows:-
               “68. Certification of operators- (1) During an exhibition the
             enclosure shall be in charge of a qualified operator of not less
             than 18 years of age, who holds a certificate granted by the Electric
 H
            GANGARAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                     1167
          [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.}

      Inspector to the effect that he is competent to handle and operate       A
      a cinematograph.
      (2) An operator shall not be granted a certificate unless he –
          (a) possesses a working knowledge of cinematograph machine
          and a particular technical knowledge of the type of machine
          which he is at the time employed in operating ;                      B

          (b) is already conversant with the rules relating to
          cinematograph exhibitions and precautions against fire ;
          (c) is acquainted with the most speedy and effective methods
          of dealing with fire ;                                               C
          (d) possesses a fine knowledge of the elements of electric
          power direct and alternating current, voltage and the like ; and
          (e) is proficient in the handling winding, repairing and efficient
          cleaning of films ;
                                                                               D
      (2-A) An operator may obtain a certificate from the Electric
      Inspector having jurisdiction by presenting himself within a period
      of 3 months from the date of his appointment, before the said
      Inspector at his Headquarters or at any other place the Inspector
      can examine the operator. If for valid reasons the Inspector is not
      in a position to examine the applicant, he may extend the time           E
      limit not exceeding 2 months in writing to the applicant under
      intimation to the licensing authority.
      (3) The Electric Inspector may, after issuing a notice to the
      operator and after considering his reply if any, withdraw a
      certificate granted by him, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.   F
      (4) In regard to the grant and withdrawal of certificate, the Electric
      Inspector shall act under the general supervision of the licensing
      authority.
      (5) The fee for grant of a certificate shall be ten rupees and a
      duplicate copy thereof may be granted on payment of a fee of             G
      two rupees.”
       13. Sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 68 provides that an operator may obtain
a certificate from the Electrical Inspector, by presenting himself within a
period of three months from the date of his appointment. Sub-rule (2-A)
                                                                               H
1168            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 5 S.C.R.


 A     of Rule 68 does not require possession of a license on date of appointment.
       Acquisition within three months of the appointment is permissible under
       sub-rule (2-A). The appellant acquired the license after the date of his
       appointment. This amounts to a valid compliance with the express
       provisions of sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 68.
 B            14. The appellant, as we have already noted, has continued in
       service since the date of his appointment in October 1991 and is in service
       for the last 28 years.
             15. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the Division
       Bench of the High Court was in error in setting aside the appointment of
 C     the appellant and interfering with the judgment of the learned Single
       Judge.
              16. For the reasons which we have indicated in the present
       judgment, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High
       Court dated 2 April 2008. In consequence, the writ petition filed by the
 D     third respondent shall stand dismissed.
             17. However, there shall be no order as to costs.


       Divya Pandey                                                  Appeal allowed.

 E




 F




 G




 H