Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Projectionist: Gangaram vs. State of Rajasthan (2019)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate must possess a license for operating a cinema projector on the last date of application, or if acquiring it within a stipulated time after appointment is sufficient.

CASE TYPE: Service Law

Case Name: Gangaram vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.

[Judgment Date]: 24 January 2019

Date of the Judgment: 24 January 2019

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can an employer disqualify a candidate for a job because they did not possess a specific license on the application deadline, even if they obtained it shortly after being appointed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a service law matter, focusing on the interpretation of rules regarding the licensing of cinema operators. The core issue revolved around whether the appellant, appointed as a projectionist, was rightly disqualified by the High Court for not possessing the required license on the last date of application. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

On 26 August 1991, the Principal and Controller of Dr. S.N. Medical College and Associated Group of Hospitals in Jodhpur issued an advertisement for various posts, including one for a Projectionist. The advertisement specified that candidates should have a higher secondary or equivalent qualification and a license for operating a cinema projector. The last date for submitting applications was 25 September 1991. The appellant, Gangaram, and the third respondent were the only two applicants for the post. Gangaram was selected and appointed as Projectionist on 22 October 1991.

The third respondent challenged Gangaram’s appointment in a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, arguing that Gangaram did not possess the required cinema operator’s license on the application deadline.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that a cinema operator’s license is merely a recognition of skill and not a formal certification. The Single Judge held that the employer’s assessment of the candidate’s skill was sufficient. However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision. The Division Bench held that the appellant did not possess the required license on the last date for submitting applications (25 September 1991). The Division Bench concluded that the appellant was not qualified and quashed his appointment, directing the authorities to consider the third respondent’s candidature.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959, which pertains to the certification of cinema operators.
The relevant provision is 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 knowledge of cinematograph machine and a particular technical knowledge of the 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 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 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.
(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.”

Notably, sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959 allows an operator to obtain the certificate within three months of their appointment. This provision does not mandate possession of the license on the date of appointment.

Arguments

The third respondent, appearing in person, argued that Rule 68(2) of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959, requires a candidate to possess a license for operating a cinema projector. The third respondent contended that the appellant did not possess the license on the last date of application, making him ineligible for the post.

The appellant contended that sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959, allows for the acquisition of the license within three months of appointment, which he had complied with.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant fulfilled the requirement of holding a license for a cinema operator.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provision:

• Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959

Judgment

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provision:

• Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959: The Court interpreted sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 68 to allow for the acquisition of the license within three months of appointment, thereby validating the appellant’s compliance.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Rule 68(2-A) of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959. The Court emphasized that this rule explicitly allows an operator to obtain the necessary certificate within three months of their appointment. The Court noted that the appellant had indeed obtained the license within this stipulated timeframe, thus fulfilling the requirement. Additionally, the Court took into consideration the fact that the appellant had been in service for 28 years, and that setting aside his appointment would cause undue hardship.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal interpretation of Rule 68(2-A) of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959. The factual aspect of the case, which was the appellant’s long service of 28 years, also played a role but was secondary to the legal interpretation.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The Court concluded that the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in setting aside the appointment of the appellant. The Court noted that the appellant’s acquisition of the license after his appointment was a valid compliance with sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959.

The court observed:

• “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) 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.”
• “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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that if a rule allows for the acquisition of a license or certificate within a specified time after appointment, then not possessing it on the date of application does not disqualify a candidate.
• Sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959, was interpreted to mean that a cinema operator can obtain the necessary certificate within three months of their appointment.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of interpreting rules in a manner that promotes fairness and avoids unnecessary hardship, especially when an employee has served for a long period.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The writ petition filed by the third respondent was dismissed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a rule allows for obtaining a license or certificate within a specified period after appointment, not possessing it on the date of application does not disqualify the candidate. This clarifies the interpretation of such rules and provides guidance for similar cases in the future.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Gangaram vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. upholds the appointment of the appellant as a Projectionist. The Court held that the appellant’s acquisition of the required license within three months of his appointment was valid compliance with the rules. This decision clarifies that an employer cannot disqualify a candidate for not possessing a license on the application deadline if the rules allow for its acquisition within a specified time after appointment.

Category:

Service Law

└── Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959

└── Rule 68, Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Gangaram vs. State of Rajasthan case?
A: The main issue was whether a candidate for the post of projectionist needed to possess a cinema operator’s license on the last date of application, or if obtaining it within a specified time after appointment was sufficient.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the candidate did not need to possess the license on the last date of application. It was sufficient if the candidate obtained the license within three months of appointment, as per Rule 68(2-A) of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959.

Q: What is Rule 68(2-A) of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959?
A: Rule 68(2-A) states that an operator may obtain a certificate from the Electric Inspector within three months of their appointment.

Q: What is the practical implication of this judgment?
A: This judgment clarifies that if rules allow for the acquisition of a license or certificate within a specified time after appointment, candidates cannot be disqualified for not possessing it on the application deadline.

Q: How does this impact future cases?
A: This ruling sets a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing that rules should be interpreted in a manner that promotes fairness and avoids unnecessary hardship, particularly when an employee has served for a long time.