Since you haven't provided a specific case, but rather a general reference to "Article 41 in Constitution of India" and a date of "26 January 1950," which is the date the Constitution came into effect, I will provide a general explanation of Article 41 and a hypothetical case summary based on a potential dispute related to it. This is not a real case summary, but rather an illustrative example based on the provided information.

Short Summary

This hypothetical case concerns a writ petition filed seeking enforcement of Article 41 of the Constitution, which directs the State to secure the right to work, to education, and to public assistance in certain cases. The petition argues that the State has failed to adequately provide for these rights, particularly for unemployed graduates. The Court ultimately holds that Article 41 is a Directive Principle of State Policy and is not directly enforceable by the courts, but directs the State to consider the petitioner's grievances when formulating future policies.

Facts

A group of unemployed graduates (the Petitioners) filed a writ petition claiming that the State government has failed to provide them with the right to work, education, and public assistance as mandated by Article 41 of the Constitution. They argue that the high unemployment rate among graduates demonstrates the State's failure. The Petitioners have been unable to secure employment despite holding degrees and have exhausted all available avenues for seeking assistance.

Issues

1. Is Article 41 of the Constitution directly enforceable in a court of law?
2. Does the State's failure to provide employment to all graduates constitute a violation of Article 41?

Petitioner's Arguments

The Petitioners argue that Article 41 imposes a positive obligation on the State to ensure that all citizens have the right to work, education, and public assistance. They contend that the State's inaction in addressing graduate unemployment is a direct violation of this constitutional mandate. They seek a writ of mandamus directing the State to create employment opportunities and provide unemployment benefits.

Respondent's Arguments

The State argues that Article 41 is a Directive Principle of State Policy, not a Fundamental Right. As such, it is not directly enforceable by the courts. The State maintains that it is taking steps to promote employment through various schemes and policies, but cannot guarantee employment to every individual. The State also argues that its resources are limited, and it must balance competing demands.

Court's Reasoning

The Court acknowledges that Article 41 is a Directive Principle of State Policy, as enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution. The Court reiterates the established legal position that Directive Principles are fundamental in the governance of the country but are not enforceable by any court. The Court recognizes the plight of unemployed graduates but emphasizes that the State has the discretion to determine the means and resources to implement these principles. The Court notes that while the State cannot be compelled to provide employment to everyone, it has a duty to strive towards achieving the goals set out in Article 41.

Conclusion

The Court dismisses the writ petition, holding that Article 41 is not directly enforceable. However, the Court directs the State government to consider the grievances of the Petitioners and to take appropriate measures, within its available resources, to address the issue of graduate unemployment when formulating future policies and schemes. No specific relief is granted to the petitioners beyond this direction to the State.