Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Saturday, 08 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2019-01-24 allowed

Gangaram vs State of Rajasthan and Ors

Bench: 2 — D.Y. Chandrachud

In Brief

A projectionist was appointed in 1991 without possessing a cinema operator's license at the time of appointment, though the recruitment advertisement stipulated this qualification. The High Court Division Bench quashed the appointment, holding the license must be held before application. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 68(2-A) of the Rajasthan Cinemas Rules permits an operator to obtain a certificate within three months of appointment. Possession at the date of appointment is not required; acquisition within the statutory period is valid compliance. The appointment was upheld, and the writ petition dismissed.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Constitutional Law Administrative Law Service Matters Appointment & Qualifications

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login