Banarsi Das & Ors Vs. The State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors [1956] INSC 27 (16 April 1956)
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-Expat waris 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
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from blemishes and who had withdrawn their resignations.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 penitential
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.
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 respondents.
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, ex359 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, Muzaffarnagar, 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 parttime 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 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 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 reappointment
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 Servants 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 departmental 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.
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.
Back
