Promotion Rules Applied at Time of Consideration, Not Vacancy: SC Set Aside HC Order

In a significant clarification on service jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the right to be considered for promotion is governed exclusively by the rules in force at the time of consideration, rather than the rules that existed when vacancies first occurred. The decision settles a long-standing dispute among police personnel in the Andaman & Nicobar Administration regarding eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector-Executive.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti heard the challenge against a High Court decision that had directed the administration to fill vacancies based on older, repealed recruitment rules. The dispute centered on whether the Andaman & Nicobar Administration (Police Department) Group ‘C’ Post Recruitment Rules, 2008 and Andaman & Nicobar Administration (Police Department) Group ‘C’ Post Recruitment Rules, 2010, which mandated a matriculation qualification and a selection test, should apply to old vacancies, or whether the Andaman and Nicobar Police Department Group ‘C’ posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive) and Head Constable (Executive) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2016, which restored a 100% seniority-cum-fitness model, should govern all current promotions.

The Principle of 'Current Rules' Over 'Old Vacancies'

The Court observed that public servants do not possess a vested right to be considered under repealed rules. Relying on the landmark three-judge bench decision in State of Himachal Pradesh & Others v. Raj Kumar & Others ( "2022 SCC OnLine SC 680": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 360), the Court noted that the previous principle established in Y.V. Rangaiah and others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others which suggested vacancies must be filled per rules existing at the time they arose is no longer the correct legal proposition. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...the right to be considered for promotion is governed exclusively by the Rules in force at the time the promotion is considered... The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah and others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others that, 'the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules', does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States under Part XIV of the Constitution of India, 1950. It is hereby overruled."

Validity of Ad Hoc Promotions and 'Completed Acts'

The respondents argued that their 2014 promotions under the old rules were 'closed transactions' protected by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. However, the Court found that since those promotions were explicitly 'ad hoc' and subject to the outcome of litigation in the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, they did not create any vested rights or 'completed acts'. The Court further emphasized the effect of 'substitution' in legislative drafting, noting that once the Andaman and Nicobar Police Department Group ‘C’ posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive) and Head Constable (Executive) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2016 were notified, the old rules ceased to exist as if they were 'scored out'.

Directions Issued to the Administration

The Court has the following directions:

"A. The impugned Judgment is unsustainable and accordingly liable to be interfered with and is set aside.

B. The Rules 2016 restored the status quo ante requirement for promotion to the post of ASI-Executive in the U.T. of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands.

C. The Administration issued a Circular in 2016 calling for applications from eligible candidates for promotion, and, by following the procedure, promotions have been made and given effect to. Those promotions are not the subject matter of this O.A. No 351/2014.

D. The existing vacancies of ASI-Executive are to be filled under the Rules 2016, within two months from today."

Background:

The litigation began when the Andaman & Nicobar Administration introduced the Andaman & Nicobar Administration (Police Department) Group ‘C’ Post Recruitment Rules, 2008, which changed the promotion criteria for Head Constables to ASI-Executive from pure seniority to a 66-2/3% merit-based quota requiring matriculation. Non-matriculate officers challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, arguing it caused professional stigma and deviated from the Delhi Police Manual. While the litigation was pending, the Administration issued the Andaman and Nicobar Police Department Group ‘C’ posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive) and Head Constable (Executive) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2016, effectively reverting to the 100% seniority-cum-fitness model and abolishing the matriculation requirement. The High Court at Calcutta, however, ordered that vacancies arising between 2008 and 2016 must still be filled using the 'merit' rules prevalent at that time. The Supreme Court set aside this direction, holding that the 2016 Rules must be the sole basis for all current promotions, as they were the rules in force when actual consideration took place. The Court relied on Gottumukkala Venkata Krishamraju v. Union of India & Others ( "(2019) 17 SCC 590": 2018 CaseBase(SC) 1275) and Zile Singh v. State of Haryana & Others ( "(2004) 8 SCC 1": 2004 CaseBase(SC) 549) to explain the prospective nature of substituted rules and State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash ( "2026 INSC 505": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 438) to reinforce that the State cannot be compelled to fill vacancies under old policy frameworks.

Case Details:
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9041 OF 2019
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 572
Case Title: JAGDISH PRASAD AND OTHERS v. P.M. MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. P.C. Das, learned Counsel
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Debajyoti Basu, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG
For the Intervenors: Mr. John Mathew

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 476