1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1690 OF 2010

GANGARAM                                           Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.           Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of

the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dated 2

April 2008.

In a Special Appeal, the Division Bench set aside the

judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 5 August 1998.    

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.

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.

Both  the  appellant  and  the  third  respondent  were

2

interviewed on 10 October 1991. The appellant was placed at Sr.

No. 1 of the select list.  As a result, he was appointed.

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was

filed  by  the  third  respondent  before  the  High  Court  for

challenging the appointment of the appellant.   The main ground

of  challenge  was  that  the  appellant  did  not  fulfil  the

qualifications  because  he  did  not  possess  a  license  for  a

cinema operator.    

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on

the  ground  that  the  license  for  a  cinema  operator  is  not

preceded  by  any  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.

While reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge,

the  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 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

3

a direction was issued to consider the candidature of the third

respondent on the basis of his eligibility on the relevant date

and  to  give  him  an  appointment  if  he  is  otherwise  found

suitable.

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 to work in the post of Projectionist

since his appointment on 22 October 1991.  

The basic issue which falls for consideration is whether

the appellant did or did not fulfil the requirement of holding

a  license  for  a  cinema  operator.   The  post  for  which  the

application was made was that of a projectionist.

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.   

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

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

(a) possesses a working khowlege of cinematograph  machine  and  a paricular technical knowledge of the

4

type of machine which he is at the time employed in operating ;

(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 ;

(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 ;  

(2-A) An operater 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 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, withraw a certificate granted by him, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

(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 two rupees.”  

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

5

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.

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.

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  the  appellant  and  interfering  with  the

judgment of the learned Single Judge.  

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 third respondent shall stand dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

…………………………………………………………………...….J (DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)

..……………………………………………………………….....J   (HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI January 24, 2019

6

ITEM NO.104               COURT NO.12               SECTION XV

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal  No(s).  1690 of 2010

GANGARAM                                           Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.             Respondent(s)

 Date : 24-01-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :           HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Appellant(s)                     Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha, AOR

Ms. Susmita Mahala, Adv. Ms. Himani Mishra, Adv.

                   For Respondent(s)

G.P. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Adv. Ms. Vaidruti Mishra, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Tiwari, Adv.

                   Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR

                   Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR                      

         UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

The  appeal  is  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed  reportable

judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(MANISH SETHI)                                  (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER (SH)                                  BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)