Case: GANGARAM Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS

2. In a Special Appeal, the Division Bench set aside the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 5 August 19983. 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 Projectionist4. 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 Projectionist5. Both the appellant and the third respondent were interviewed on 10 October 1991. The appellant was placed at Sr. No. 1 of the select list. As a result, he was appointed6. 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 operator7. 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 dismissed8. 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 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 suitable9. 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.

Reasoning:
13. 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 6814. 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