In Brief
Tamil Nadu's power distribution company (TANGEDCO) recruited 4,000 ITI Helper trainees in 2012–2013 following a Supreme Court-directed Justice Khalid Commission report on accommodating existing workers and skilled workers. Unsuccessful candidates initially challenged the recruitment process; after the single judge dismissed their petitions, a Division Bench accepted a compromise offering employment to 84 candidates. Other unsuccessful candidates later sought identical relief, claiming parity. The Supreme Court held that a compromise lacking merits adjudication cannot serve as precedent for extending identical relief to candidates who did not approach the court in time. The principle of equality under Article 14 does not require perpetuation of unjustified benefits ("negative equality"). Candidates guilty of laches and delay cannot claim parity based on a compromise order. The Court accordingly dismissed appeals by aggrieved candidates and allowed TANGEDCO's appeals.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.