Summary
Unsuccessful candidates sought appointments by parity with a compromise under which TANGEDCO had appointed 84 litigants after successfully defending its recruitment. The Court rejected the parity claims. The unreasoned compromise was expressly confined to its parties and could not become a precedent or justify further appointments under Article 14. The candidates’ appeals were dismissed and TANGEDCO’s appeals against orders granting similar appointments were allowed.
Issues
- Whether unsuccessful candidates could claim appointments by parity with an earlier compromise order.
- Whether the compromise constituted a binding precedent or supported an equality claim despite delay.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaEquality does not require repetition of appointments obtained through an unjustified compromise; a benefit lacking legal justification cannot generate further rights to parity. (¶ 23-25)
Held
- The earlier recruitment challenge had failed on merits. The later compromise appointed specified litigants without an adjudication overturning that decision and expressly excluded both precedential effect and extension to others. It could not support further appointments merely through parity. (¶¶ 18-20, 23)
- A public employer may properly concede an untenable argument, but a compromise affecting public employment requires scrutiny of legality and public interest. The compromise here lacked a legal justification for appointments after the employer had succeeded on merits. (¶¶ 20-21, 25)
- Aravind Kumar Srivastava concerned relief grounded in merits adjudication and was distinguishable. The present compromise was neither an order in rem nor a binding precedent; the subsequent candidates had also approached the courts belatedly after the compromise. (¶ 22-23)
- Article 14 embodies positive equality. A benefit conferred without legal basis cannot be multiplied through demands for equal treatment. The candidates could therefore claim no appointment on the foundation of this compromise. (¶ 24-25)
- The candidates’ appeals against the decision dated 2 August 2018 were dismissed. TANGEDCO’s appeals against the appointment directions dated 29 April 2019 were allowed, without an order as to costs. (¶ 25)
Result
Candidates’ appeals dismissed; TANGEDCO’s appeals allowed. Subsequent candidates denied appointments based on parity with the earlier compromise. No order as to costs.