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

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 16-04-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
357 
The respondent raised the contention that the State 
had no locus standi to intervene in these proceedings 
and at the stage of appeal, but in the view which we 
have taken of the rights of the parties, a discussion 
of this point is purely of academic interest. 
It is 
sufficient to direct that the above memorandum be 
filed and included as part of the record. 
Appeals allowed. 
BANARSI DAS & OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS. 
[S. R. DAS, C.J., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, 
B. P. SINHA and JAFER IMAM JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Arts. 14 and 16-Government's right to 
lay down certain qualification /01· new recruits for any appointment 
or employment 1mder the Governnz.ent-Candidates not possessing any 
fundamental right for employment. 
The petitioners-Ex-patwaris under the State of Uttar Pradesh 
-brought the present petition under Article 32 of the Constit.ution 
in the Supreme Court alleging that the ·Provisions of arts. 14 and 
16 of the Constitution had been violated because they had been 
denied equality before the law and equal opportunity for employment 
under the State. 
Patw:i.ris numbering about 28,000 in the whole State of Uttar 
Pradesh had organized themselves into "The U.P. Patwaris Associa· 
tions" 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 pn.twaris went on a "pen-down strike" with 
the result thl\t the Government withdrew the recognition of the 
Association. The Government further published the new "Land 
Records Manual" embodying new amended rules regarding recruit· 
ment, conditions of service and duties of patwaris. The Associ11tion 
protested against the revised Land Records Manual and passed 11 
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 Much, 1953 after which date they will consi<ler 
themselves as free from all obligations to work under the Govern· 
ment. 
About 26,000 patwaris actually resigned with a view to pa.· 
ralyse the whole revenue administration in the State and to coerce 
i7 
1956 
Karanpura 
Development Co , 
Ltd. 
v. 
Raja Kamaksliya 
N araill Singh 
Venkatarama 
AyyarJ. 
1956 
APril 16 
1956 
Banarsi Das 
attd others 
v. 
The State of 
Uttar Pradesh 
and others 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPOR'rS 
[1956) 
the Government into accepting their demands. 'l'he Government 
however, accepted their resignations and relieved them of their 
duties before the 4th March, 1953. On the very next date, tbe 5th 
March, 1953, the Government announced the creation of a new 
service of "Lekhpals" and proceeded ta organize that service by re· 
cruiting 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 caclre of Lekbpals. The 
Government was thus giving • locus poenitentiae to those of the ex· 
patwaris who had joined the agitation. Tbe question for considera· 
tion 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 had been 
prevented from re·entering Government service upon the re-orga.niea.· 
tian of the cadre under tbe new name and had been denied equality 
of opportunity as contemplated by Art. 16 of tbe Constitution was 
without substance as tbe Government were within their right. to 
lay down certain qualifications for the new recruits. 
They were 
entitled to exclude those persons who bad betrayed a le.ck of proper 
sense of discipline. 
Article 16 of the Constitution is an inetance of the application 
of the general rule of equality laid down in Art. 14 with special rof· 
erence 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 candi· 
dates offering themselves far employment under the Government. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 569 of 
1954. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution for the en-
forcement of fundamental rights

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.