16 April 1956
Supreme Court
Download

BANARSI DAS & OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS.

Bench: DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ),BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.,AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA,SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.,IMAM, SYED JAFFER
Case number: Writ Petition (Civil) 569 of 1954


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: BANARSI DAS & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/04/1956

BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA IMAM, SYED JAFFER

CITATION:  1956 AIR  520            1956 SCR  357

ACT:        Constitution of India, Arts. 14 and 16-Government’s right to        lay  down  certain qualification for new  recruits  for  any        appointment  or employment under  the  Government-Candidates        not possessing any fundamental right for employment.

HEADNOTE:        The petitioners-Ex-patwaris under the State of Uttar Pradesh        -brought  the  present  petition under  Article  32  of  the        Constitution   in  the  Supreme  Court  alleging  that   the        provisions  of arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution had  been        violated  because they bad been denied equality  before  the        law and equal opportunity for employment under the State.        Patwaris numbering about 28,000 in the whole State of  Uttar        Pradesh  had  organized themselves into "The  U.P.  Patwaris        Associations"  with a view to improving their prospects  and        emoluments.   The association passed  resolutions  demanding        increase  in  pay and allowances etc.   The  Government  was        considering  these matters when a large number  of  patwaris        went  on  a  "pen-down  strike" with  the  result  that  the        Government withdrew the recognition of the Association.  The        Government  further published the new "Land Records  Manual"        embodying   new   amended   rules   regarding   recruitment,        conditions   of  service  and  duties  of   patwaris.    The        Association  protested  against  the  revised  Land  Records        Manual  and  passed a resolution that  all  patwaris  should        submit   their  resignations  on  the  2nd  February,   1953        requesting  that they should be relieved of their duties  by        the  4th  March, 1953 after which date  they  will  consider        themselves  as free from all obligations to work  under  the        Government.  About 26,000 patwaris actually resigned with  a        view  to  paralyse the whole revenue administration  in  the        State and to coerce        47        358        the Government into accepting their demands.  The Government        however,  accepted their resignations and relieved  them  of        their  duties before the 4th March, 1953.  On the very  next        date,  the  5th March, 1953, the  Government  announced  the

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

      creation  of  a new service of "Lekhpals" and  proceeded  to        organize that service by recruiting the new personnel  which        included  most  of the old patwaris.  It also  included  all        those  patwaris  whose  record  of  service  was  free  from        blemishes and who had withdrawn their resignations.  Some of        the petitioners were absorbed in the new cadre of  Lekbpals.        The Government was thus giving a locus poenitentiae to those        of  the  ex-patwaris  who had  joined  the  agitation.   The        question  for  consideration before the  Supreme  Court  was        whether  the  petitioners  who  came  within  the   category        excluded   from   re-appointment  had  been   denied   equal        opportunity  of appointment as Lekhpals and thus Art. 16  of        the Constitution had been infringed.        Held,  that the contention of the petitioners that they  bad        been prevented from re-entering Government service upon  the        re-organisation of the cadre under the new name and had been        denied equality of opportunity as contemplated by Art. 16 of        the  Constitution  was without substance as  the  Government        were within their rights to lay down certain  qualifications        for  the new recruits.  They were entitled to exclude  those        persons  who  had  betrayed  a  lack  of  proper  sense   of        discipline.        Article  16  of  the  Constitution is  an  instance  of  the        application  of  the general rule of equality laid  down  in        Art.  14  with  special reference  to  the  opportunity  for        appointment  and employment under the Government.  Like  all        other  employers, Government are also entitled to  pick  and        choose  from amongst a large number of  candidates  offering        themselves for employment under the Government.

JUDGMENT:        ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 569 of 1954.        Under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement  of        fundamental rights.        Purshotam Trikamdas, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath of  M/s        Rajinder Narain & Co., for the petitioners.        K.   L. Misra, Advocate-General of Uttar Pradesh,        S.   P.  Sinha,  K. B. Asthana and C. P. Lal, for  the  res-        pondents.        1956.  April 16.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by        SINHA J.-This petition under article 32 of the  Constitution        on behalf of as many as 726 persons, ex-        359        patwaris  under  the first respondent, the  State  of  Uttar        Pradesh,  seeks  the  aid of this  Court  in  enforcing  the        provisions of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, on the        allegation mainly that they had been denied equality  before        the  law  and  equal opportunity for  employment  under  the        State.  The Revenue Minister of Uttar Pradesh is the  second        respondent, and the Land Reforms Commissioner of that  State        is  the third respondent.  The Collectors of  Meerut,  Muza-        ffarnagar,  Aligarh, Badaun and Moradabad are respondents  4        to 8.        It appears that patwaris numbering about 28,000 in the whole        of  the State of Uttar Pradesh had organised  themselves  in        1940  into  "The U.P. Patwaris Association" with a  view  to        improving  their prospects and emoluments.  They were  part-        time  servants of the Government in the Revenue  Department.        After the Zamindari Abolition Act was brought into operation        in that State, their services were very much in demand.  The        Association  held meetings and passed resolutions  demanding        increase  in  pay  and allowances and  betterment  of  their        service   conditions.    These  matters   were   under   the

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

      consideration    of   the   Government,    following    upon        representations and deputation to the Revenue Minister.   It        appears,  however, that under bad advice a large  number  of        patwaris in the State went on a "pen-down strike" on the 9th        January  1953 with the result that the  Government  withdrew        the  official  recognition of the Association  on  the  19th        February 1953.  In the meantime the new Land Records  Manual        was  published in January 1953 embodying new  amended  rules        regarding  recruitment, conditions of service and duties  of        patwaris.   This brought matters to a head and there  was  a        special  session of the Association at Lucknow on  the  26th        January 1953.  The Association passed resolutions protesting        against  the  revised  Land Records  Manual.   It  was  also        resolved  at  the special session that all  patwaris  should        submit   their  resignations  on  the  2nd  February   1953,        requesting  that they may be relieved of their work  by  the        4th  March 1953 after which date they will treat  themselves        as free from all        360        obligations  to work under the Government.  In pursuance  of        that  resolution, about 26,000 patwaris in the whole of  the        State resigned.  There is no doubt that by submitting  their        resignations en masse the patwaris betrayed a lack of  sense        of  discipline.   By doing so, they apparently  intended  to        paralyse  the whole revenue administration in the State  and        to  coerce the Government to accept their demands; but  they        did  not  envisage the situation that the  Government  might        accept their resignations and take them at their own  words,        The Government decided to accept their resignations and  the        petitioners  were  relieved of their duties soon  after  the        submission of their resignations, before the 4th March 1953.        On  the very next day, the 5th March,  Government  announced        the creation of a new service of "Lekhpals" and proceeded to        organise that service by recruiting the new personnel  which        included  most  of  the old patwaris.  The  new  cadre  also        included all those patwaris whose record of service was free        from  blemishes  and who had withdrawn  their  resignations.        Out  of  the  petitioners  also as many  as  132  have  been        absorbed  in  the new cadre of Lekhpals and  many  more  are        likely to be absorbed in the service of Government.  Thus it        appears   that   Government  have  been   giving   a   locus        poenitentiae  to those of the ex-patwaris who have  realized        their  mistake in joining the agitation aforesaid  and  thus        trying to force the bands of Government.        The petitioners’ grievance is that they have been  prevented        from   re-entering   the   Government   service   upon   the        reorganisation  of the cadre under the new Dame.  But it  is        clear  that  the Government are within their rights  to  lay        down certain qualifications for the new recruits.  They  are        entitled  to exclude those persons who have betrayed a  lack        of proper sense of discipline.  It cannot therefore be  said        that  the  Government have denied an  equal  opportunity  to        those  who are equal in all respects.  It appears  that  the        Government have not permanently filled all the vacancies  in        the new cadre.  Those of the petitioners who are prepared to        accept the discipline of Government service may approach the        proper authorities        361        through  the proper channel and we have no doubt that  their        cases will receive sympathetic consideration at the hands of        the  Government,  consistently  with  the  demands  of   the        exigencies of public service.        Our attention was particularly invited to the new scheme  of        recruitment as laid down in the Government orders of the 5th        March  which contained the directions that all patwaris  who

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

      bad  not  resigned  and  who had  not  reached  the  age  of        superannuation would be absorbed, that the patwaris who  had        resigned  but  had withdrawn their resignations by  the  4th        March 1953 would also be absorbed and that of those who  had        resigned  and  whose resignations had  been  accepted,  only        those  will be absorbed who had an excellent record of  work        and  who  had  not taken an active part  in  the  agitation.        Besides  those,  fresh recruits also were to  be  taken  in.        With reference to those directions it was contended that the        petitioners who came within the category excluded from reap-        pointment  had  really  been  denied  equal  opportunity  of        appointment  as  Lekhpals and that thus article  16  of  the        Constitution  was infringed.  In our opinion, it is open  to        the   appointing  authority  to  lay  down   the   requisite        qualifications for recruitment to Government service and  it        is  open  to that authority to lay  down  such  prerequisite        conditions  of  appointment  as would be  conducive  to  the        maintenance   of   proper  discipline   amongst   Government        servants.  If persons already under Government employment on        part-time  basis had shown themselves not to be amenable  to        proper  discipline  in Government offices, it  was  open  to        Government  not  to appoint such persons  to  the  permanent        cadre of Lekhpals because such persons could not be said  to        be  as  efficient  as those who  bad  excellent  records  of        service  and  had shown greater sense of  responsibility  to        their  employers.   Article  16 of the  Constitution  is  an        instance of the application of the general rule of  equality        laid  down  in  article 14, with special  reference  to  the        opportunity   for  appointment  and  employment  under   the        Government.   Like all other employers, Government are  also        entitled to pick and choose from amongst a large number of        362        candidates  offering  themselves for  employment  under  the        Government.        As  already indicated, the old patwaris held part-time  jobs        under the Government.  The new cadre of Lekhpals is intended        to  re-organise  a similar service on  a  more  satisfactory        basis  both from the point of view of the Government and  of        the  employees  themselves.   Under  the  new  scheme,   the        Lekhpals  are  intended  to be whole-time  servants  of  the        Government  on a considerably higher scale of pay  and  with        better prospects subject, of course, to the Government  Ser-        vants  Conduct  Rules.  If the Government  have  decided  to        exclude  all  those who had proved themselves  as  part-time        servants  of  the  Government to be lacking in  a  sense  of        discipline  and  of responsibility, it cannot be  said  that        they  had been denied equal opportunity of  appointment  and        employment  under the Government.  Government have not  laid        down  rules excluding any particular group of  persons  from        being candidates for appointment.  They bad only issued  de-        partmental  instructions not to employ those who bad  not  a        satisfactory  record of service in the past.  Selection  for        appointment  in  Government  service  has got  to  be  on  a        competitive basis and those whose past service has been free        from  blemish can certainly be said to be  better  qualified        for Government service than those whose record was not  free        from any blemish.  The matter thus stands on a basis similar        to where the Government may make it a condition precedent to        promotion  to a higher rank in the same cadre of  Government        service  that only those who had a very satisfactory  record        in  the  past would be considered for  promotion.   It  must        therefore  be  held  that the  petitioners  have  failed  to        substantiate  their  contention that they  had  been  denied        equality of opportunity as contemplated by article 16 of the        Constitution.

5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

      After   moving   this  Court  under  article   32   of   the        Constitution,  most of the petitioners and many  others,  in        all  1,352 in number, also made an application  for  special        leave  to  appeal (being Special Leave Petition No.  426  of        1955)  from  the judgment and orders of the  High  Court  of        Judicature at Allahabad dated the        363        24th  August 1954 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No.  45        of 1954, after their application for leave to appeal to this        Court had been dismissed by that Court’s order dated the 5th        August  1955.  This petition was not filed within  the  time        limited by the rules of this Court and on their own  showing        there  was  a delay of 44 days in filing  the  petition  for        special  leave.   The only ground urged in  support  of  the        application   for   condonation  of   delay   (being   Civil        Miscellaneous Petition No. 1402 of 1955) is that they bad to        collect money from amongst a large number of petitioners who        were interested in the case.  In our opinion, that is not  a        sufficient ground for condoning the delay.        In  the  result, both the petition under article 32  of  the        Constitution  and the petition for special leave  to  appeal        are dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.