LexR. MUTHUKUMAR & ORS. versus THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR TANGEDCO & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 577 [2022] 1 S.C.R. 577 577 R. MUTHUKUMAR & ORS. . v. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR TANGEDCO & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1144 of 2022 ) FEBRUARY 07, 2022 [UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND BELA. M. TRIVEDI, JJ.] Service Law: Concession-based orders – Public employer conceding in course of proceedings to a compromise – Such compromise, when not justified – Held: Fairness demands that public bodies, as model employers, do not pursue untenable submissions – In such cases, a concession, which is based on law, and accords to a just interpretation of the concerned law and/or rules, is sustainable – However, it is altogether another thing for a public employer, whose conduct is questioned, and who has succeeded on the merits of the case before the lower forum to voluntarily agree, in an unreasoned manner, to a compromise – The harm and deleterious effect of such conduct is to prioritize the claim of those before the court, when it is apparent that a large body of others, waiting with a similar grievance (and some of whom probably have a better or legitimate claim on merits to be appointed) are not parties to the proceedings – In such cases, a compromise is not only unjustified, it is contrary to law and public interest – Compromise/ Settlement. Constitution of India: Art. 14 – Negative equality – Held: A principle, axiomatic in this country’s constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality – If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 : [2013] 8 SCR 227; Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745 : [1995] 1 SCR 126; Anand Buttons Ltd. v State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC 164; K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. (2006) 3 SCC A B C D E F G H 578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R. 581 : [2006] 1 SCR 342; Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2010) 11 SCC 455 : [2010] 7 SCR 317; Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab (2014) 15 SCC 715 : [2014] 6 SCR 311; and The State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati 2019 SCC Online SC 1207 – relied on. Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Aravind Kumar Srivastava & others (2015) 1 SCC 347 : [2014] 12 SCR 193; C. Channabasavaiah v. State of Mysore [1965] 1 SCR 360 and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Rajubhai Somabhai Bharwad & Ors. 2015 (7) SCC 663 : [2015] 8 SCR 263 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2014] 12 SCR 193 referred to Para 14 [1965] 1 SCR 360 referred to Para 21 [2015] 8 SCR 263 referred to Para 21 [2013] 8 SCR 227 relied on Para 24 [1995] 1 SCR 126 relied on Para 24 (2005) 9 SCC 164 relied on Para 24 [2006] 1 SCR 342 relied on Para 24 [2010] 7 SCR 317 relied on Para 24 [2014] 6 SCR 311 relied on Para 24 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1144 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No.574 of 2017. With Civil Appeal Nos. 1145-1155, 1156-1179, 1180-1187 and 1188-1214 of 2022. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., D. Kumanan, Sheikh Fakhruddin Kalia, Ms. Shruti Gupta, Gautam Narayan, Ms. Asmita Singh, G. Anandkumar, Abhinav Agrawal, Rajiv K. Virmani, Gaurav Jain, Atul Malhotra, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Rajesh Kumar, K. S. Govinda Prasad, T. Harish Kumar, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Advs. for the appearing parties. A B C D E F G H 579 The Order of the Court was passed by S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. Special leave granted. With consent of counsel for parties, these appeals were heard finally. The appellants (hereby also referred to as “the aggrieved candidates”) in four sets of appeals1 are aggrieved by a common judgment and order dated 02.08.2018 of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. In another appeal2 the management of Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (hereafter “TANGEDCO”) is aggrieved by another judgment of the said High Court, whereby it was directed to appoint the respondents (writ petitioners who had approached the court, hereby called “respondent applicants”) as ITI Helpers based on a previous order dated 14.10.2015 in W.A. No. 81/2015. Brief facts 2. In proceedings before this court3, orders were issued appointing late Mr. Justice Khalid, a former Judge of this court, to consider and recommend better methods for filling up of vacancies by accommodating existing workers on the one hand, and skilled workers on the other. Justice Khalid’s report stated, inter
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.