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

J.-This petition under article 32 of the Constitution on behalf of as many as 726 persons, expatwaris 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 b~en denied equality before the law and equal opportumty 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. 'I'he Collectors of Meerut, Muzaffarnagar, Aligarh, Badaun and Moradabad are respondents 4 to 8.

pp. 358–359

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 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 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 acc~pt 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 many as 132 have been absorbed in the new cadre 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 those of the ex-patwaris who have realized their mistake in joining the agitation aforesaid and thus trying to force the hands of Government.

pp. 359–360

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 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 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 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.

pp. 360–361

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 had 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 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 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 the Government.

pp. 361–362

As already indicated, the old patwaris time jobs under the Government. Lekhpals is intended to reorganise on a more satisfactory basis both view of the Government and of the selves. Under the new scheme, the tended to be whole-time servants of on a considerably higher scale of pay prospects subject, of course, to the vants Conduct Rules. If the Government cided to exclude all those who had proved as part-time servants of the Government ing in a sense of discipline and of cannot be said that that they had been denied portunity of appointment and employment Government. Government have not laid cluding any particular group of persons from being candidates for appointment. They had partmentalinstructions not to employ not a satisfactory record of service in tion for appointment in Government be on a competitive basis and those whose has been free from blemish can certainly better qualified for Government service whose record was not free from any matter thus standR on a basis similar Government may make it a condition promotion to a. higher rank in the same ernment service that only those who factory record in the past would be considered promotion. It must therefore be held tioners have failed to substantiate that they had been denied equality contemplated by article 16 of the Constitution.

p. 362

After moving this Court under Constitution, most of the petitioners_ in a.ll 1,352 in number, also ma.de an special leave to appeal (being Special No. 426 of 1955) from the judgment High Court of J udica.ture at Allahabad 24th August 1954 pa§sed 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. '!'his 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 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.

pp. 362–363, margin A

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.

p. 363

BAS DEV

p. 363

v.

p. 363

THE STATE OF PEPSU [BH<lGWATI and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.]

p. 363

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

p. 363

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 possible to him with the requisite intention. But if he had not gone so deep in drinking and from the facts it could 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.

p. 363

That rule of law is well settled:

p. 363

1. That insanity, whether produced by drunkenness or otherwise, is a defence to the crime charged;

p. 363