GANGARAM versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 24 January 2019

[2019] 5 S.C.R. 1163

GANGARAM

v.

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

(Civil Appeal No.1690 of 2010)

JANUARY 24, 2019

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDHEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]

Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959 – r. 68(2),(2-A) – Advertisement issued inviting applications, inter alia, for onepost of Projectionist, stipulating that the candidate must inter aliapossess license for operating cinema projector – Appellant and thethird respondent were the only candidates – Appellant appointed –Challenged by third respondent mainly on the ground that theappellant did not fulfil the qualifications as he did not possess licensefor cinema operator – Single Judge dismissed the writ petition –Division Bench quashed the appointment of the appellant – Onappeal, held: r.68, sub-r. (2-A) of the 1959 Rules provides that anoperator may obtain certificate from the Electrical Inspector, bypresenting himself within period of three months from the date ofhis appointment – Sub-r. (2-A) of r. 68 does not require possessionof license on date of appointment – Thus, acquisition within threemonths of the appointment is permissible – Appellant acquired thelicense after the date of his appointment – This amounts to a validcompliance with the express provisions of sub-r. (2-A) of r. 68 –After notice in the present proceedings was issued, status quo wasdirected to be maintained – Pending disposal of the appeal, theinterim order was directed to continue – Consequently, the appellanthas continued to work in the post of Projectionist since hisappointment in Oct.1991 and is in service for the last 28 years –Division Bench in error in setting aside the appointment of theappellant – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Consequently,the writ petition filed by the third respondent stands dismissed.

An advertisement was issued by the Principal andController of Dr. S.N. Medical College and Associated Group ofHospitals at Jodhpur, inviting applications, inter alia, for one post A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1164SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aof Projectionist. The advertisement stipulated that the candidatemust 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. Thirdrespondent challenged the appellant’s appointment, by filing writpetition before the High Court, mainly on the ground that theBappellant did not fulfil the qualifications as he did not possess thelicense for cinema operator. Single Judge dismissed the writpetition. Division Bench reversed the said order and quashedthe appointment of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the CourtC

HELD: 1.1 Sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 68, Rajasthan Cinemas(Regulation) Rules, 1959 provides that an operator may obtain acertificate from the Electrical Inspector, by presenting himselfwithin a period of three months from the date of his appointment.Sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 68 does not require possession of a licenseDon date of appointment. Acquisition within three months of theappointment is permissible under sub-rule (2-A). The appellantacquired the license after the date of his appointment. Thisamounts to a valid compliance with the express provisions ofsub-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 2008and status quo was directed to be maintained. Leave was grantedon 8 February 2010 and, pending disposal of the appeal, the interimorder was directed to continue. In consequence, theappellant has continued in service since the date of hisFappointment in October 1991 and is in service for the last 28years. [Paras 9, 14][1168-B]

1.3 The Division Bench of the High Court was in error insetting aside the appointment of the appellant and interferingwith the judgment of the Single Judge. The judgment of the HighGCourt is set aside. In consequence, the writ petition filed |bythe third respondent shall stand dismissed. [Paras 15, 16][1168-B-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1690Aof 2010

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2008 of the High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.956 of 1999

B

Shekhar Prit Jha, Ms. Susmita Mahala, Ms. Himani Mishra, Advs.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 theHigh Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dated 2 April 2008.

2. In a Special Appeal, the Division Bench set aside the judgmentof a learned Single Judge dated 5 August 1998.

D

3. An advertisement was issued by the Principal and Controller ofDr. S.N. Medical College and Associated Group of Hospitals at Jodhpuron 26 August 1991 inviting applications, inter alia, for one post ofProjectionist.

E

4. The advertisement stipulated that the candidate must possess ahigher secondary or equivalent qualification and a license for operatinga cinema projector. The last date for filing application forms was 25September 1991. The appellant and the third respondent were the onlycandidates. The appellant was appointed on the post of Projectionist.

F

5. Both the appellant and the third respondent were interviewedon 10 October 1991. The appellant was placed at Sr. No. 1 of the selectlist. As a result, he was appointed.

6. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filedby the third respondent before the High Court for challenging theappointment of the appellant. The main ground of challenge was that theappellant did not fulfill the qualifications because he did not possess alicense for a cinema operator.

G

7. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on theground that the license for a cinema operator is not preceded by any H

1166

Acourse of certification and is only a recognition of skill. According to thelearned Single Judge, once the employer has made a due assessment ofthe skill of a candidate, the appointment is not vitiated. The writ petitionwas dismissed.

8. While reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, theBDivision Bench held that under the terms of the advertisement,applications were required to be received by 25 September 1991. Theapplication in the opinion of the Division Bench should have beenaccompanied by necessary certificates establishing academic andtechnical qualifications. The Division Bench held that the appellant didnot, together with his application, furnish any document showing that heCheld a license for operating cinema projectors. On this ground, the DivisionBench came to the conclusion that the appellant was not qualified on thelast date for the submission of applications. The appointment of theappellant was quashed and a direction was issued to consider thecandidature of the third respondent on the basis of his eligibility on theDrelevant date and to give him an appointment if he is otherwise foundsuitable.

9. Notice was issued in these proceedings on 7 July 2008 andstatus quo was directed to be maintained. Leave was granted on 8February 2010 and, pending disposal of the appeal, the interim orderEwas directed to continue. In consequence, the appellant has continuedto work in the post of Projectionist since his appointment on 22 October1991.

10. The basic issue which falls for consideration is whether theappellant did or did not fulfill the requirement of holding a license for aFcinema operator. The post for which the application was made was thatof a projectionist.

11. The third respondent, who appears in person, has submittedbefore this Court that under Rule 68(2) of the Rajasthan Cinemas(Regulation) Rules, 1959, it is necessary to possess such a license.G12. In view of this submission, it is necessary to advert to theprovisions of Rule 68. Rule 68 provides as follows:- “68. Certification of operators- (1) During an exhibition theenclosure shall be in charge of a qualified operator of not lessthan 18 years of age, who holds a certificate granted by the Electric H

Inspector to the effect that he is competent to handle and operatea cinematograph.

(2) An operator shall not be granted a certificate unless he –

(a) possesses a working knowledge of cinematograph machineand a particular technical knowledge of the type of machinewhich he is at the time employed in operating ; (b) is already conversant with the rules relating tocinematograph exhibitions and precautions against fire ;

(c) is acquainted with the most speedy and effective methodsof dealing with fire ; (d) possesses a fine knowledge of the elements of electricpower direct and alternating current, voltage and the like ; and (e) is proficient in the handling winding, repairing and efficientcleaning of films ; (2-A) An operator may obtain a certificate from the ElectricInspector having jurisdiction by presenting himself within a periodof 3 months from the date of his appointment, before the saidInspector at his Headquarters or at any other place the Inspectorcan examine the operator. If for valid reasons the Inspector is notin a position to examine the applicant, he may extend the timelimit not exceeding 2 months in writing to the applicant underintimation to the licensing authority.

(3) The Electric Inspector may, after issuing a notice to theoperator and after considering his reply if any, withdraw acertificate granted by him, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

(4) In regard to the grant and withdrawal of certificate, the ElectricInspector shall act under the general supervision of the licensingauthority.

(5) The fee for grant of a certificate shall be ten rupees and aduplicate copy thereof may be granted on payment of a fee oftwo rupees.”

13. Sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 68 provides that an operator may obtaina certificate from the Electrical Inspector, by presenting himself within aperiod of three months from the date of his appointment. Sub-rule (2-A)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof Rule 68 does not require possession of a license on date of appointment.Acquisition within three months of the appointment is permissible undersub-rule (2-A). The appellant acquired the license after the date of hisappointment. This amounts to a valid compliance with the expressprovisions of sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 68.

B14. The appellant, as we have already noted, has continued inservice since the date of his appointment in October 1991 and is in servicefor the last 28 years.

15. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the DivisionBench of the High Court was in error in setting aside the appointment ofCthe appellant and interfering with the judgment of the learned SingleJudge.

16. For the reasons which we have indicated in the presentjudgment, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the HighCourt dated 2 April 2008. In consequence, the writ petition filed by theDthird respondent shall stand dismissed.

17. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Divya Pandey

Appeal allowed.

E

F

G

H