# Karanpura Development Co , Ltd v. Raja Kamaksliya N araill Singh Venkatarama AyyarJ

- **Citation:** [1956] 1 S.C.R. 357
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1956-04-16
- **Bench:** S. R. Das, Bhagwati, Venkatarama Ayyar, B. P. Sinha, Jafer Imam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/karanpura-development-co-ltd-v-raja-kamaksliya-n-araill-singh-venkatarama-ayyarj-1313
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

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 enforcement of fundamental rights.
Purshotam Trikarrulas, 8. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath of M/s Rajinder Narain &; Go., for the petitioners.
K. L. Misra, Advocate-General of Uttar P

## Text

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 enforcement of fundamental rights.
Purshotam Trikarrulas, 8. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath of M/s Rajinder Narain &; Go., for the petitioners.
K. L. Misra, Advocate-General of Uttar Pradesh,
8. P. Sinha, K. B. Asthana and 0. 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, ex-
..;-
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 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.
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
1956
Banarsi Das
and others
v.
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
and others
Sinha J.
1956
Banarsi Das
and others
v.
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
and others
Sinha J.
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1956)
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 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 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 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
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 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
1956
Banarsi Das
and others
v.
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
and others
Sinha J.
1956
Banarsi Das
and others
v.
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
atid others
Sinha J.
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1956)
candidates offering themselves for employment under
the Government.
As already indicated, the old patwaris held parttime jobs under the Government. The new cadre of
Lekhpals is intended to reorganise 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 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 had only issued departmentalinstructions not to employ those who had
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 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 Government service that only those who had a. very f!atisfactory 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 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
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
363
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.
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
v.
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 influence 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:
1. That insanity, whether produced by drunkenness or otherwise, is a defence to the crime charged;
1956
Banarsi Das
and others
v.
The State of
Utta1· Pradesh
and others
Sinha J.
19.56
April 17