- The Hon’ble SC has, in the case of R. Muthukumar vs. Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO, held that there is no principle of negative equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. If there has been, through an illegal order, a benefit conferred on a person or a set of people, the same cannot be multiplied and be used as a precedent for future cases.
- In the instant case, in 2015, in accordance with a compromise decree between TANGEDCO and 84 persons, the Madras HC had directed their appointment. Later, several other unsuccessful candidates approached the HC claiming employment in parity with these 84 people.
- A single judge dismissed the petitions, holding that the said candidates cannot avail the benefit of the compromise order. In a later set of petitions, the single judge allowed the claims.
- The division bench dismissed the candidates appeals while allowing the appeals filed by TANGEDCO. Later, two sets of appeals were filed before the SC. One was by the aggrieved candidates who claimed employment on the basis of parity, and the other was by TANGEDCO against the order which required it to give employment to the unsuccessful candidates who had not approached the Court earlier but had later filed a writ petition.
- It was contended by the candidates that restricting the benefit to only those candidates who had approached the Court earlier amounted to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. They also claimed that in terms of performance, they might as well have fared better than those 84 candidates who were given employment by the compromise decree.
- It was argued by TANGEDCO that the compromise order was not based on any rule of law but was merely a concession. They also contended that a wrong that was committed on the basis of the wrong order cannot compel the performance of an act which is unjustified in law as there was no concept of negative equality in the Constitution.
- The SC held that the compromise order was not based on merits and therefore held that the candidates cannot claim the benefit of parity as their petition was founded on the same compromise order.
- In support of their decision, the Court relied on the landmark case of Basawaraj and anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013)14 SCC where it was held that it is a well established constitutional principle that there is no negative equality. Thus, if there is a legal advantage conferred on one set of people without legal basis, then the same can be relied upon as a principle of parity and cannot be multiplied.
- Thus, in light of the aforesaid, TANGEDCO’s appeals were allowed and the appeals filed by the unsuccessful candidates were set aside.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
