The locus classicus is State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa, (1974) 1 SCC 19. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud elaborated on extent of judicial review in matters of classification in public employment. On whether Educational Qualifications can be recognized as a criterion for classification, State of Mysore v. P Narasing Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349; Ganga Ram v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 377; Union of India v. Dr. (Mrs.) SB Kohli, (1973) 3 SCC 592 and Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1889 was referred to. The dictum in Triloki Nath Khosa was further expounded in Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76. Roop Chand Adlakha v. Delhi Development Authority, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 116 followed Triloki Nath Khosa too.
Courts cannot indulge in a mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification or replace wisdom of Legislature or its delegate with their own. Generally speaking, Educational Qualification is a valid ground for classification between persons of the same class in matters of promotion and is not violative of Articles 14 and 16. Persons drawn from different sources and integrated into a common class can be differentiated on grounds of Educational Qualification for the purpose of promotion, where this bears a nexus with efficiency required in the promotional post.
We are unable to agree, Triloki Nath Khosa is not applicable in present case.
– Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Chandan Banerjee v. Krishna Prosad Ghosh, [Civil Appeal No. 5582 of 2021].
Also see, Devender Bhaskar v. State of Haryana, [Civil Appeal No. 7031 of 2021] decided on 24.11.2021.