Banarsi Das & Others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others.

SINHA J.-This petition under article 32 of the Constitution on behalf of as many as 726 persons, ex-patwaris under the first respondent, the State of 1956 Uttar Pradesh, seeks the aid of this Court in enforc-ing the provisions of articles 14 and 16 of the Consti-Banarsi Das and others tution, on the allegation mainly that they had b~en v. denied equality before the law and equal opportumty The State of for employment under the State. The Revenue Minis-Uttar Pradesh ter of Uttar Pradesh is the second respondent, and and others the Land Reforms Commissioner of that State is the Sinha J. third respondent. 'I'he Collectors of Meerut, Muza-ffarnagar, Aligarh, Badaun and Moradabad are res-pondents 4 to 8.

It appears that patwaris numbering about 28,000 in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh had or-ganised 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 opera-tion 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 Govern-ment, following upon representations and deputa-tion 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 recruit-ment, 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 resolu-tions 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 1956 obligations to work under the Government. In pursu-

ance of that resolution, about 26,000 patwaris in the Banarsi Das whole of the State resigned. There is no doubt that and others

v. by submitting their resignations en masse the patwaris The State of betrayed a lack of sense of discipline. By doing so, Uttar Pradesh they apparently intended to paralyse the whole re-and others venue administration in the State and to coerce the

J. Government to acc~pt their demands; but they did Sinha 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 or-ganise 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 ser-vice 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 mis-take in joining the agitation aforesaid and thus try-ing to force the hands of Government.

The petitioners' grievance is that they have been prevented from re-entering the Government service upon the reorganisation df the cadre under the new name. But it is clear that the Government are with-in 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 Gov-ernment 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 Govern-ment service may approach the proper authorities through the proper channel and we have no doubt 1956 that their cases will receive sympathetic considera-tion at the hands of the Government, consistently Banarsi Das with the demands of the exigencies of public service. and others v. Our attention was particularly invited to the new The State of scheme of recruitment as laid down in the Govern-Uttar Pradesh ment orders of the 5th March which contained the and others directions that all patwaris who had not resigned and Sinha J. 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 ex-cellent 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 Govern-ment 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 Lekbpals because such persons could not be said to be as efficient as those who had 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 appoint-ment and employment under the Government. Like all other employers, Government are also entitled to pick and choose from amongst a large number of 1956 candidates offering themselves for employment under

the Government.

Banarsi Das As already indicated, the old patwaris held part-and others

v. time jobs under the Government. The new cadre of The State of Lekhpals is intended to reorganise a similar service Uttar Pradesh on a more satisfactory basis both from the point of

atid others view of the Government and of the employees them-

J. selves. Under the new scheme, the Lekhpals are in-Sinha

tended 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 de-cided to exclude all those who had proved themselves as part-time servants of the Government to be lack-ing in a sense of discipline and of responsibility, it cannot be said that that they had been denied equal op-portunity of appointment and employment under the Government. Government have not laid down rules ex-cluding any particular group of persons from being candidates for appointment. They had only issued de-partmentalinstructions not to employ those who had not a satisfactory record of service in the past. Selec-tion 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 standR 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 Gov-ernment service that only those who had a. very f!atis-factory record in the past would be considered for promotion. It must therefore be held that the peti-tioners 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 a.ll 1,352 in number, also ma.de 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 J udica.ture at Allahabad dated the 24th August 1954 pa§sed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ 1956 No. 45 of 1954, after their application for leave to ap-peal to this Court had been dismissed by that Court's Banarsi Das and others order dated the 5th August 1955. '!'his petition was v. not filed within the time limited by the rules of this The State of Court and on their own showing there was a delay of Utta1· Pradesh 44 days in filing the petition for special leave. The and others only ground urged in support of the application for Sinha J. condonation of delay (being Civil Miscellaneous Peti-tion No. 1402 of 1955) is that they had 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.

BAS DEV 19.56

v.

April 17

THE STATE OF PEPSU

[BH<lGWATI and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.]

Indian Penal Gode, (XLV of 1860), ss. 802-80"·86-Murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Accztsed ttnder the influ-ence of drink but his mind not so obscured by the drink as to cause incapacity in him to form the requisite intention-Knowledge and intention.

So far as knowledge is concerned the court must attribute to the intoxicated man the same knowledge as if he was quite sober but so far as intent or intention is concerned, the court must gather it from the attending general circumstances of the case paying due regard to the degree of intoxication. If the man was beside his mind altogether for the time being, it would not be possible to fix him with the requisite intention. But if he had not gone so deep in drinking and from the facts it could be found that he knew what he was about the court will apply the rule that a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act or acts.

That rule of law is well settled:

¶1That insanity, whether produced by drunkenness or other-wise, is a defence to the crime charged;

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 569 of 1954.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution for the en-forcement of fundamental rights.

Purshotam Trikarrulas, 8. N. Andley and Ramesh-war Nath of M/s Rajinder Narain &; Go., for the peti-tioners.

K. L. Misra, Advocate-General of Uttar Pradesh, 8. P. Sinha, K. B. Asthana and 0. P. Lal, for the res-pondents.

1956. April 16. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by