case as there is no concept of negative equality. We have no quarrel with the said proposition. However, it is still open to be examined why in respect of other similarly situation persons, the Higher Education Department has been granting approval of their appointment to the post of Assistant Professor on the strength of their selection with marks allotted for Ph.D. obtained from Distance Learning Mode, but an exception is carved out for denying the petitioner the same treatment merely because he had MIL in Bengali Language. In the opinion of the Court, if the petitioner can show hostile discrimination on the basis of caste creed, language or religion, such an examination becomes more imperative because the provision of Article 16 of the Constitution of India mandates that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State, and that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. Therefore, when the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has been able to demonstrate that the notification dated 31.03.1964 knowledge of a specific language should not be prescribed as an essential qualification for recruitment. Therefore, in light of the touchstone of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, principle of negative equality determined in light of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is negated as the provision of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India operates in different field.
