Cardozo, ‘The Nature of Judicial Process’ ]. Bearing such principle in mind, this Court cannot help but observe that there may arise certain situations which require untangling of a complicated mesh of competing rights; where the Court may be required to innovate, not at pleasure but within the realm of perennial common law, principles of equity and good conscience, so as to arrive at an equilibrium of rights i.e., find the best possible solution. Today, this Court finds itself in the midst of one of such situations. The selection of more than 14,000 candidates, is under challenge in the present proceedings. As a natural consequence thereof, their right to livelihood and right to freedom of choosing a profession of their choice, hang in the balance. At the same time, candidates who have assailed the present selection process, are vying for an equal opportunity to participate in a fair selection process which has been allegedly denied to them. Wedged between these competing rights, the fundamental right to education of school children, has remained suspended in a state of limbo. While there may not be enough material to suggest that the school children have received no pedagogical guidance during these past years, it is a reasonable presumption that their education has suffered. There remains little doubt that education is a tool for the betterment of our civil institutions and paves the path to an informed and questioning citizenry. In the years since the inclusion of Article 21-A, it has been reiterated on numerous occasions that the right to education attaches to the individual as an inalienable human right. Since 2016, such inalienable human right has been held hostage by litigation over the propriety of the selection process of qualified school teachers. In other words, the future of children which is often synonymised
