Case: Banarsi Das &amp; Others Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Others

2. It appears that patwaris numbering about 28,000 in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh had organized 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 inassociation 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 9-1-1953 with the result that the Government withdrew the official recognition of the Association onthe 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 onThe Association passed resolutions protesting against the revised Land Recordswas also resolved at the special session that all patwaris should submit their resignations on 2-2-1953, requesting that they may be relieved of their work by 4-3-1953 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 ofdoing so, they apparently intended to paralyze 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 to their resignations, beforethe very next day, the 5th March, 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. The new cadre also included all those patwaris whose record of service was free from blemishes and who had withdrawn theirof 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 paenitentiae 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.

Reasoning:
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 ofcannot, 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 publicour opinion, it is open to the appointing authority to lay down the requisite qualifications for recruitment to Government service andit is open to the 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 had excellent records of service and had shown greater sense of responsibility to their16 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 Governmentthe 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 Governmentfor 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 anypetition 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 it not a sufficient ground for condoning the delay.