Officiating Employees Have No Vested Right To Promotion Under Repealed Rules: SC
Copy Link
Share
Save
Reaffirming that public employees posted on a purely local officiating basis carry no vested right to claim promotions under repealed recruitment framework, the Supreme Court has set aside High Court directions ordering BSNL to consider employees under pre-2005 Rules.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the appeals filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited against the judgment of the High Court, which had directed the consideration of officiating Assistant Directors (Official Language) for promotion to 'Rajbhasha Adhikari' without subjecting them to the written test mandated under the 2005 Recruitment Rules.
Key Takeaways
No Vested Promotional Right For Officiating Staff: Employees working purely on a local officiating basis cannot claim a vested right to be considered for regular promotion under older rules after new statutory recruitment rules take effect.
Overruling of Old Vacancy Principle Standardized: Adhering to recent binding precedent, candidates must be considered under the rules existing at the time of actual consideration rather than when the vacancies originally arose.
State Rights in Restructuring Enforced: The employer or government holds full prerogative to alter recruitment qualifications or introduce competitive examinations to streamline executive cadres, provided such policy meets Article 14 standards.
Officiating Promotion Rules
The Supreme Court scrutinized the factual distinction between employees holding officiating appointments and those granted provisional promotions. Re-evaluating past decisions, the bench observed that the High Court erred in extending the benefit of older rules to officiating employees who had never undergone regular departmental promotion procedures. The Bench expressed that "Thus, applying the ratio laid down by this Court in Raj Kumar (supra), the High Court could not have directed consideration of the private respondents-writ petitioners’ case for promotion on the basis of the Rules existing immediately prior to the enactment of the 2005 Rules. Thus, the common impugned judgments passed by the High Court deserve to be set aside..."
Ratio
A candidate possesses a right to be considered for promotion only in light of the rules existing on the date of actual consideration, and employees working on an officiating basis possess no vested right to claim consideration under repealed rules for vacancies that arose prior to statutory amendments.
Background
The Department of Telecommunications had created posts of Hindi Translators across various grades, with Hindi Officer as the promotional post. Under an administrative order dated April 28, 1994, automatic promotions were contemplated upon completing specified years of service. However, statutory rules framed in 2002—which provided for filling existing vacancies from Hindi Translators—were never brought into force. Subsequently, the 2005 Rules re-designated the post as 'Rajbhasha Adhikari' and introduced a mandatory limited internal competitive examination for promotion.
The private respondents, who were working on an officiating basis, challenged the 2005 Rules before the High Court. The High Court directed BSNL to consider them for promotion under the pre-2005 position, relying on Y.V. Rangaiah and Others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others ( "(1983) 3 SCC 284": 1983 CaseBase(SC) 369). Aggrieved, BSNL appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted that the present case was directly governed by CMD/Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others v. Mishri Lal and Others rather than Medini C. and Others v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others, because the employees in Medini C. and Others v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others had been provisionally promoted under specific statutory clauses, whereas the present respondents were purely officiating. Furthermore, referencing State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Raj Kumar and Others ( "(2023) 3 SCC 773": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 360) which overruled Y.V. Rangaiah and Others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others ( "(1983) 3 SCC 284": 1983 CaseBase(SC) 369), the Apex Court reiterated that there is no universal rule requiring vacancies to be filled under laws existing on the date they arose, and state policy decisions restructuring cadres satisfy Constitution of India, 1950 as long as they are fair and reasonable.
Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Appeal No(s). 12966-12967 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1007
Case Title: The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. G.N. Mani Ravinder and Others etc.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Learned ASG
For the Respondent(s): Mr. G. Arudhra Rao, Advocate
Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 7008
Breaking News
