GANGARAM versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 1163 · Decided: 24-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1163
 GANGARAM
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Civil Appeal No.1690 of 2010)
JANUARY 24, 2019
[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
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 –
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
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
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,
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
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 1163
1163
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
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
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
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
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]
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
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
Court is set aside. In consequence, the writ petition filed |by
the third respondent shall stand dismissed. [Paras 15, 16]
[1168-B-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1165
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1690
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.
for the Appellant.
G. P. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Ms. Vaidruti Mishra, Adarsh Tiwari,
Milind Kumar, Ms. Ruchi Kohli,  Advs. for the  R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.