Equality of opportunity in public employment requires merit-based consideration, and a blanket ban without lawful basis is unsustainable.

A blanket governmental ban excluding a person from consideration for State employment can violate the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity if it lacks a reasonable basis and has no fair relation to suitability for appointment. The protected right is not limited to applying for public employment; it includes the right to have the application considered on merits. Where the exclusion is unsupported by disclosed reasons or a lawful process, the ban is not legally sustainable and amounts to denial of Article 16(1) protections.

---

---

Issues: Whether a governmental ban preventing the petitioner from being considered for employment under the State violated the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity in public employment.

Analysis: A blanket ban on consideration for government employment, if unsupported by a reasonable basis and not shown to bear a just relation to suitability for appointment, deprives the affected person of the right guaranteed by Article 16(1). The right protected by the Constitution is not merely the right to apply, but the right to have the application considered on merits. On the materials before it, the ban was not shown to rest on any disclosed or fair process, and the respondents' affidavit failed to establish a lawful basis for excluding the petitioner from consideration.

Conclusion: The ban amounted to denial of equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and was not legally sustainable.

---