In Brief
TANGEDCO recruited ITI Helpers through a 2012 process involving interviews. After the single judge rejected writ petitions from unsuccessful candidates, a Division Bench accepted a compromise order appointing 84 rejected candidates. Later, other similar candidates sought the same benefit. The Supreme Court held that a compromise order based on bare concession (not merit) cannot bind employers to extend identical relief to later-approaching candidates. The court reaffirmed that Article 14 does not perpetuate illegality through 'negative equality,' and that laches in approaching court matters when the earlier order was concession-based rather than merit-adjudicated. Appeals by both later-approaching candidates and TANGEDCO's counter-appeals were accordingly dismissed and allowed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.