JUDGMENT

HANSARIA,J.:

1. The golden triangle of bur constitution is composed of Articles 14, 19 and 21. Incorporation of such a trinity in our paramount parchment is for the purpose of paving such a path for the people of India which may see them close to the trinity of liberty, equality and fraternity. It could also be said that the trio assists the deprived and destroys the exploiters of the depressed class.

2. In the cases at hand, we are concerned with one of the constitutional trinities, namely, Article 14 and that too with one of its facets as embodied in Article 16, which takes care of equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. As to what Article 16 has to say when right to be considered for promotion is either barred or restricted on the basis of educational qualifications, with which aspect of Article 16 we are concerned in these cases, has been spelt out by a good number of Constitution Bench decisions of this Court. It is not necessary to take note of all those case. It would be enough to first apprise ourselves as to what such a Bench had said in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Trilokinath Khosa, 1974 (1) SCR 771. Chandrachud, J., as hen then was, speaking for self, Ray CJ, and Palekar, J. made certain pertinent observations in this regard which were very ably supplemented by Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for self and Bhagwati, J., as he then was. The sum and substance of what was stated in the leading judgment is that the guarantee of equality is precious and the theory of classification may not be allowed to be extended so as to subvert to submerge the same. Of course, while being called upon to decide whether the classification in question is constitutionally permissible, excellence in service has also to be borne in mind; so too the fact that excellence and equality are not friendly bed-fellows. A pragmatic approach is, therefore, required to harmonise the requirements of public services with the aspirations of public servants.

3. Krishna Iyer, J., stated that the social meaning of Articles 14 and 16 is neither dull uniformity nor specious telentism. Further, the soul of Article 16 is the promotion of the common mans capabilities, opening up full opportunities to develop without succumbing to the sophistic argument of the elite that talent is the privilege of the few and they must rule. But then, personnel policy does require an eye on efficiency; and so, though chill penury should not repress their noble rage, technical proficiency cannot be sacrificed at the altar of wooden equality. All these call for a striking of balance between the long hunger for equal chance of the lowlier and the disturbing concern of the community for higher standards of performance. Even so, mini-classifications based on micro-distinctions are false to our egalitarian faith; and over-doing of classifications would be undoing of equality. The Court has to functions always as a sentinel on the qui vive.

4. Despite the difference in the underlying thoughts as reflected in the aforesaid two judgments, the Bench was unanimous on the question that educational qualifications can from the basis of a valid classification. In coming to this conclusion, State of Mysore v. P. Narasingh Rao, 1968 (1) SCR 407, which is by a Constituticn Bench; and Union of India v. Dr. S.B. Kohli, AIR 1973 SC 811, a rendering of a three Judge Bench.

5. The Constitution Bench decision rendered in Roshan Lal v. Union of India, 1968 (1) SCR 185, which seemed at the surface to have struck a discordant note, was explained by the Khosa Bench by stating that what that case had laid down was that if two differently situated holders of public office have fused into one, causing disappearance of genetic blemishes, they cannot be differentiated thereafter having been integrated into a common class, as that would amount to make equals unequals once again. To reinforce this understanding of Roshanlals case, the Khosa majority Judges pointed out that the very Bench