Promoted Officiating, Not Regularly? Supreme Court Says No Vested Right Under Old Promotion Rules

The Supreme Court has held that employees who are working on a higher post only on an officiating basis cannot claim a vested right to be promoted under old recruitment rules, particularly when those rules were never brought into force.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Ujjal Bhuyan said employees cannot seek promotion under rules that were in place before the government restructured the cadre and introduced a new recruitment process.

Court held that there is no universal rule that vacancies must necessarily be filled according to the law that existed when those vacancies arose.

Court said it is a settled proposition that a candidate has a right to be considered for promotion under the rules existing on the date when eligible candidates are considered.

It further held that the government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill vacancies arising before an amendment of the rules. An employee does not acquire a vested right to be considered for promotion under repealed rules merely because the vacancy arose when those rules were in force.

"The employee does not acquire any vested right for being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the government. There is no obligation for the government to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuring," the Bench said.

Court, however, stressed that such policy decisions must be fair and reasonable and satisfy the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Why did the Supreme Court deny promotion under the old rules?

Court was considering a civil appeal filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and another against a high court decision directing consideration of the respondents' claims for promotion.

The dispute concerned whether the respondents' case was governed by the Supreme Court's three-judge bench decision in Medini C. and Others v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others (2022), or by its earlier judgment in CMD/Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others v. Mishri Lal and Others (2011).

The private respondents were working as Assistant Director (Official Language), later renamed ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’, on an officiating basis.

The Department of Telecommunications had constituted a separate wing for promotion of Hindi language and created posts of Hindi Translator Grade I, II and III. The next higher post was that of Hindi Officer.

The respondents were appointed as Hindi Translators in different grades. Administrative orders issued from time to time prescribed guidelines for promotion to the next higher post.

One such order dated April 28, 1994 provided that Hindi Translators Grade I, II and III would be promoted automatically to the post of Hindi Officer on completion of three, five and eight years of service respectively.

However, the respondents were not given the benefit of promotion under these administrative orders.

Meanwhile, the Department of Telecommunications framed statutory rules, namely the Assistant Director (Official Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002. Under these rules, the post of Hindi Officer was redesignated as Assistant Director (Official Language), and all 120 existing vacancies were to be filled by promoting eligible Hindi Translators.

The respondents were again not granted promotion. Significantly, the 2002 Rules were never brought into operation.

The government subsequently enacted the 2005 Rules, which renamed the post as ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’ and prescribed a written test to determine eligibility for promotion. The rules also provided that if an adequate number of candidates were not available for promotion, the corresponding vacancies could be filled through direct recruitment.

The respondents approached the high court seeking consideration for promotion. The single judge allowed their petitions and directed consideration of their claims. The division bench upheld the order.

How did the Supreme Court distinguish the earlier judgments?

The Supreme Court noted that the respondents had never been promoted to the post of ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’, either on a regular or ad hoc basis.

Court said the key distinction between Mishri Lal and Medini C. was the nature of the respondents' appointments.

In Mishri Lal, the employees were working on the next higher post of ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’ on an officiating basis, as in the present case. In Medini C., however, the employees had been provisionally promoted.

Court therefore held that the present case was covered by the principle laid down in Mishri Lal, where the relief was denied because the employees were working on the next higher post only on an officiating basis and consequently had no vested right to be considered for promotion under the old rules.

In Medini C., the employees had been provisionally promoted, which was why the court had distinguished Mishri Lal.

What did the Supreme Court say about vacancies arising under old rules?

Referring to State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Raj Kumar and Others (2023), the Bench reiterated that there is no universal rule requiring vacancies to be filled according to the law that existed on the date they arose.

Court said the right of a candidate is to be considered under the rules existing when eligible candidates are considered for appointment or promotion.

Applying this principle, the Bench held that the high court could not have directed consideration of the respondents' claims for promotion under the rules that existed immediately before the 2005 Rules were enacted.

The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the high court's judgments and allowed the appeals.

Case Title: The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Another Vs G N Mani Ravinder And Others Etc

Bench: Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Ujjal Bhuyan

Date of Judgment: September 17, 2026