In Brief
A medical college advertised for a Projectionist requiring a cinema operator's license. The appellant was appointed without possessing the license initially but obtained it after appointment. A third-party candidate challenged the appointment in the High Court. While the Single Judge dismissed the petition, the Division Bench quashed the appointment, finding the appellant unqualified at the application date. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that Rule 68(2-A) of the Rajasthan Cinemas Rules permits acquiring the license within three months of appointment, not before. Therefore, the appellant's appointment was valid.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.