Summary
The appellant’s appointment as a medical-college projectionist was challenged because he had not furnished a cinema-operator licence with his application. The Court held that Rule 68(2-A) expressly permits certification within three months of appointment. His acquisition of the licence after appointment complied with that provision. The Division Bench therefore erred in treating lack of a licence at the application deadline as disqualifying and setting aside the appointment.
Issues
- Whether Rule 68 required the projectionist to possess the operator certificate by the application deadline or permitted acquisition after appointment.
Provisions considered
- Rule 68, particularly sub-rule (2-A), Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959The express post-appointment certification period governed; the appellant’s acquisition of the licence after appointment was valid compliance. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
Held
- Rule 68(2-A) permits an operator to obtain a certificate by presenting himself to the Electrical Inspector within three months of appointment. Possession of the licence on the appointment date is therefore not required by that sub-rule. The appellant’s later acquisition amounted to valid compliance. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The Division Bench erred in overturning the appointment on the basis that the licence had not accompanied the application. The appellant had continued in the post since October 1991, for twenty-eight years by the time of judgment. (¶¶ 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; Division Bench judgment dated 2 April 2008 set aside and the third respondent’s writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.