Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court which set aside the appointment of the appellant, Gangaram, as Projectionist at Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur. An advertisement dated 26 August 1991 invited applications for the post, requiring a higher secondary qualification and a license for operating a cinema projector. The appellant and the third respondent were the only candidates. The appellant was appointed after being placed first in the select list. The third respondent challenged the appointment by writ petition under Article 226, arguing that the appellant did not possess a cinema operator license on the last date for applications (25 September 1991). The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the license is only a recognition of skill and the employer had assessed the candidate's skill. The Division Bench reversed, holding that the application should have been accompanied by the license certificate, and since the appellant did not furnish it, he was not qualified on the last date. The Supreme Court examined Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959, particularly sub-rule (2-A), which allows an operator to obtain a certificate from the Electric Inspector within three months of appointment. The court noted that the appellant acquired the license after appointment, which is valid compliance. The court also observed that the appellant had continued in service for 28 years. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench judgment, and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Division Bench erred in interfering with the Single Judge's decision.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Qualification - License Requirement - Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959, Rule 68(2-A) - The appellant was appointed as Projectionist but did not possess a cinema operator license on the last date for applications. The Division Bench quashed his appointment. The Supreme Court held that Rule 68(2-A) permits obtaining a certificate within three months of appointment, and the appellant acquired the license after appointment, which is valid compliance. The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition dismissed. (Paras 1-5) B) Interpretation of Statutes - Subordinate Legislation - Rule 68(2-A) - The court interpreted Rule 68(2-A) of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959, which allows an operator to obtain a certificate from the Electric Inspector within three months from the date of appointment. The court held that this provision does not require possession of a license on the date of appointment, and acquisition within three months is permissible. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant fulfilled the requirement of holding a license for a cinema operator at the time of application or appointment
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; judgment of High Court dated 2 April 2008 set aside; writ petition filed by third respondent dismissed; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Rule 68(2-A) of Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules
- 1959 permits obtaining operator certificate within three months of appointment
- license not required on date of application or appointment
