A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India in Banarsi Das & Others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (1956 SCR 357) laid down a seminal precedent concerning Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The matter arose when approximately 26,000 patwaris in Uttar Pradesh, disgruntled by revised service conditions, resigned en masse, only to be denied re-entry into the newly created cadre of Lekhpals. The Court was called upon to decide whether such exclusion from re-employment amounted to a violation of equality before law and equal opportunity in public employment. The judgment meticulously upheld the State’s authority to determine service eligibility criteria, observing that disciplinary breaches could form a valid basis for exclusion. The Court stressed the government’s right to prefer candidates with blemish-free service records, thereby recognizing disciplinary integrity as a constitutional and administrative priority. Through this ruling, the Court reaffirmed the government’s discretion to maintain efficiency and discipline in public services by applying reasonable standards to recruitment, even post-resignation. The decision retains enduring relevance in public service jurisprudence and continues to be invoked in matters involving collective resignations, mass agitations, and recruitment norms under constitutional equality mandates.

Keywords: Article 14, Article 16, Lekhpals, Patwaris, Equality of Opportunity, Government Service, Mass Resignation, Disciplinary Criteria

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Banarsi Das & Others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others

ii) Case Number: Petition No. 569 of 1954

iii) Judgement Date: 16 April 1956

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: S.R. Das, C.J., Bhagwati, Venkatarama Ayyar, B.P. Sinha, and Jafer Imam, JJ.

vi) Author: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Sinha

vii) Citation: (1956) SCR 357

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None reported

x) Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Service Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case unfolded in the backdrop of post-Zamindari Abolition administrative reforms in Uttar Pradesh. Patwaris, who were part-time land record officers, felt increasingly marginalized. In protest against revised service rules, they staged a mass resignation. The state government responded by establishing a restructured cadre — Lekhpals — with stricter qualifications. The controversy arose when only select ex-patwaris, those with unblemished service records or who had retracted their resignations in time, were absorbed. Petitioners, denied reappointment, invoked Articles 14 and 16, asserting that they were unjustly excluded despite previously holding equivalent roles. The case tested the constitutional balance between individual rights under Articles 14 and 16 and the government’s prerogative to ensure administrative discipline.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

In early 1953, around 28,000 patwaris organized under the U.P. Patwaris Association demanded improved pay and service conditions. The government, then assessing their representations, faced a pen-down strike starting January 9, 1953. In retaliation, it withdrew official recognition from the association on February 19, 1953, and simultaneously issued a new Land Records Manual outlining revised service norms. On February 2, 1953, nearly 26,000 patwaris submitted their resignations, intending to cease duties by March 4, 1953. The state promptly accepted these resignations and began reorganizing the cadre. On March 5, 1953, it established the Lekhpals as a new service, absorbing only those ex-patwaris who had not participated in the agitation or who had retracted resignations. 132 of the petitioners were reabsorbed, while others were denied, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court alleging infringement of constitutional rights.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the exclusion of certain ex-patwaris from the newly constituted Lekhpal cadre violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for the petitioners contended that the government violated Article 14 by treating similarly situated individuals unequally. They argued that all patwaris were equally qualified for the Lekhpal cadre, having held the same role previously. The exclusion of those who did not withdraw their resignations by a specific date was arbitrary and unreasonable. Further, they claimed violation of Article 16, as equal opportunity in public employment must include fair access to recruitment irrespective of prior agitation. The petitioners submitted that past participation in lawful protests should not disqualify them from public employment if they met all technical qualifications.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for the State, led by the Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh, contended that discipline is a legitimate ground for exclusion from government service. They emphasized that the patwaris resigned en masse to paralyze the revenue administration. This act reflected a breach of loyalty and discipline, disqualifying them under service norms. The State asserted that it merely exercised its discretionary power under recruitment guidelines to safeguard administrative integrity. Moreover, since the service of Lekhpals was a new whole-time cadre, the petitioners had no vested right for automatic inclusion. The exclusion was based on rational criteria: service record and conduct, not on unconstitutional grounds.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
ii) Article 16(1) of the Constitution guarantees equal opportunity in public employment.
iii) Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions for enforcement of fundamental rights.
iv) Government Servants Conduct Rules were referred to establish the basis for employee conduct evaluation.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that Article 16 is not violated when the State applies reasonable criteria for public employment selection, provided such criteria are non-discriminatory and serve administrative needs. The government could validly prefer candidates with blemish-free records, even among those previously holding identical posts. The Court observed that the mass resignation was not a termination but a voluntary act by the patwaris. The government merely accepted their withdrawal. The right to be considered for employment does not equate to a right to be appointed. A history of indiscipline justifies exclusion in a sensitive public function like land records administration.

b. OBITER DICTA

i) The Court noted that while government servants have the right to protest, collective coercion that disrupts administration may justifiably impact reappointment prospects. It emphasized the doctrine of locus poenitentiae—the chance to withdraw wrongful acts—but clarified that its application rests on executive discretion, not legal entitlement.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Government may exclude individuals from employment based on:

  1. Participation in undisciplined strikes.

  2. Service records showing misconduct or irresponsibility.

  3. Failure to withdraw resignation within stipulated timelines.

  4. Administrative criteria aimed at preserving discipline.

• Public employment is not a guaranteed right but subject to lawful conditions of eligibility.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment upheld the constitutional balance between fundamental rights and state discretion in employment. It stressed that public employment is not an entitlement but a privilege governed by discipline and administrative trust. The case is a landmark in delineating the limits of Article 16, showing that equal opportunity does not mean unconditional inclusion. It remains a relevant precedent when mass protestors seek reappointment, clarifying that discipline and past conduct matter in public roles. This decision reinforces that employer discretion, when applied with fairness and rationale, is constitutionally protected.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
[1] Banarsi Das & Others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (1956) SCR 357
[2] Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. Raja Kamakhya Narain Singh, (1956) AIR 1956 SC 95

b. Important Statutes Referred
[3] Constitution of India, Article 14
[4] Constitution of India, Article 16
[5] Constitution of India, Article 32
[6] Government Servants Conduct Rules