Standard Games Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and Others Etc.

- labour & servicesappointment: [s.b.sinha & v.s.sirpukar, jj] posts of sub-inspector of police - select list - at first stage of recruitment process, 57 posts more than advertised 112 posts were filled up - legality and/or validity thereof not questioned government increased number of vacancies from time to time having regard to emergent situation in state. held, in the circumstances filling up new vacancies from said select list is not improper. recruitment: [s.b.sinha & v.s.sirpurakar, jj] recruitment -posts of sub inspectors of police- police act (5 of 1861), section 7 - advertisement showing that interview was to be conducted after holding written test and physical ability test - thus, passing in physical ability test is sine qua non for selection of candidates held, therefore, physical ability test has to be held prior to holding of interview. changing order of holding tests by selection committee would be illegal. indian evidence act, 1872 section 115; [s.b.sinha & v.s.sirpurkar,jj] estoppel appointment - candidate participating in selection process - accepted change in procedure by selection committee sub silentio by not questioning appointments made earlier held, candidate is estopped from challenging the process adopted. 1. leave granted in slp (c) no. 5560/84.2. the admitted facts are that the appellant had installed the video game consisting of a machine with a display screen which is activated only by inserting a coin in the slot made in the machine. immediately thereon, the screen is lit up and the game commences. the question is : whether it is an entertainment within the meaning of section 2(a) of u.p. entertainment and betting act, 1979 (for short, the 'act') the appellant's own case is that the operator gets nothing in return other than the pleasure he derives or enjoys from exercising or building up his skill in operating the machine. the act defines 'admission' under section 2(a). section 2(g) defines 'entertainment'. section 2(1)(iii), (iv) and (v) in particular defines 'payment for admission' with wide language. notification dated july 24, 1981 was issued by the state exercising the power under sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the act prescribing the rates of admission.3. admittedly, since there is no enumeration in this regard for the video game, clause (v) of the said notification imposes 30% of the admission fee as entertainment tax. the controversy raised in this case is squarely covered by the decision of this court in geeta enterprises and ors. v. state of u.p. and ors. : [1983]3scr812 . this court has considered the above provisions and had held that charge of inserting the coin was realised only from those who wanted to operate the video game at the rate of 50 paise, for a slot lasting upto 30 seconds and it amounts to entertainment within the meaning of section 2(g) of the act. therefore, video games is exigible to entertain tax. we, therefore, hold that the appellant is liable to pay the entertainment tax. we do not find any illegality in the view taken by the high court warranting interference.4. the appeals are accordingly dismissed. no costs.