9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Violation of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by denying equality before the law and equal opportunity for employment. 2. Denial of re-entry into government service upon the reorganization of the cadre under a new name. 3. Allegation of infringement of article 16 of the Constitution due to exclusion from reappointment as Lekhpals. 4. Contention that the petitioners were denied equal opportunity of appointment as Lekhpals. 5. Delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal due to the collection of funds. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petition, filed on behalf of 726 ex-patwaris, sought enforcement of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, alleging denial of equality and employment opportunities by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners were part-time servants in the Revenue Department and organized themselves to demand better pay and conditions. However, a mass resignation led to the government accepting their resignations and creating a new cadre of "Lekhpals," absorbing some ex-patwaris who met the criteria. The court held that the government had the right to set qualifications for recruitment and exclude those lacking discipline, thus not denying equal opportunity. 2. The petitioners' grievance was being prevented from re-entering government service after the cadre reorganization. The court noted that the government had not permanently filled all vacancies in the new cadre and those willing to accept discipline could reapply. The petitioners were advised to approach authorities for reconsideration, ensuring their cases would be sympathetically considered in line with public service demands. 3. The petitioners argued that they were denied equal opportunity for reappointment as Lekhpals under the new recruitment scheme. The court upheld the government's authority to set qualifications for recruitment to maintain discipline among employees. Article 16 of the Constitution allows the government to select candidates for employment, emphasizing the importance of discipline and efficiency in government service. 4. The court addressed the contention that the petitioners were excluded from reappointment unfairly, infringing article 16 of the Constitution. It clarified that the government had the right to exclude individuals with a poor disciplinary record from permanent appointment. Selection for government service is competitive, and those with a blemish-free record are considered better qualified. The petitioners failed to prove they were denied equal opportunity as per article 16. 5. The petitioners also sought special leave to appeal, delayed by 44 days due to collecting funds from interested parties. The court dismissed the application, stating that the reason for the delay was insufficient. Consequently, both the petition under article 32 and the petition for special leave to appeal were dismissed, with no order as to costs.
|
