A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has ruled that employees working purely on an officiating arrangement possess no vested right to claim promotion under old or repealed rules merely because vacancies arose prior to an amendment. Allowing appeals filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), the apex court set aside the decisions of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court, which had directed BSNL to consider officiating Hindi Translators for promotion to the post of ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’ under earlier rules without requiring them to clear the written test mandated by the Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated within the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), which established a dedicated wing for the promotion of the Hindi language and created posts of Hindi Translator Grade I, II, and III. The promotional avenue above these grades was designated as Hindi Officer. The private respondents were appointed as Hindi Translators across these grades.
Under an administrative order issued on April 28, 1994, promotion guidelines provided that Hindi Translators Grade-I, II, and III would be entitled to automatic promotion to the post of Hindi Officer upon completing 3, 5, and 8 years of service, respectively. However, the respondents were not extended promotion under these administrative guidelines.
Subsequently, the DoT framed statutory rules titled the Assistant Director (Official Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002, which re-designated the post of Hindi Officer as Assistant Director (Official Language). The 2002 Rules stipulated that irrespective of the ratio between direct recruitment and promotion, all existing 120 vacancies would be filled by promoting eligible Hindi Translators. However, none of the respondents received promotion under these rules, which were never brought into actual operation.
Thereafter, the DoT framed the Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005, which renamed the post as ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’ and introduced a mandatory written examination to evaluate eligibility for promotion. The 2005 Rules further provided that if an adequate number of candidates were not available for promotion, the corresponding unfilled vacancies would be diverted to direct recruitment. Aggrieved by this change in criteria, the respondents approached the High Court. The Single Judge directed BSNL to consider their promotion based on rights accrued under the pre-existing rules without subjecting them to the written examination under the 2005 Rules, a decision that was later affirmed by the Division Bench.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Assailing the High Court’s judgments, counsel for BSNL, Mr. Piyush Sharma, alongside Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Additional Solicitor General appearing for the DoT, submitted that the respondents’ claims were squarely governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in CMD/Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others v. Mishri Lal and Others (2011). They further submitted that the High Court’s view—holding that employees are entitled to be considered under the rules prevalent when the vacancies arose—ran directly contrary to the law laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Raj Kumar and Others (2023).
Opposing the appeals, learned counsel for the private respondents, Mr. G. Arudhra Rao, argued that the dispute was governed by the three-judge bench ruling in Medini C. and Others v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others (2022), which had distinguished Mishri Lal. He contended that because the respondents had been promoted on an officiating basis prior to the enactment of the 2005 Rules, their rights were governed by the old rules, and the High Court was justified in granting them relief.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court noted as an undisputed factual position that all the private respondents were serving against the post of Assistant Director (Official Language) or ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’ purely on an officiating basis and had never been promoted on a regular or ad hoc basis.
The Court referred to paragraph 10 of Mishri Lal, where the apex court observed:
“10. It may be mentioned that the respondents herein were never regularly promoted as Hindi Officer at any point of time either under the 1984 Rules or the Recruitment Rules, 2002. They had never been appointed on the basis of the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee duly approved by the Union Public Service Commission. In fact, they were appointed purely on a local officiating basis under the powers delegated to the heads of telecom circles on the basis of administrative instructions dated 28-4-1994. Thus, they were never regular appointees and hence had no vested rights for promotion to the post of Hindi Officer under the Recruitment Rules of 2002, which, in fact, were never in operation at any point of time. Besides this, when the revised Recruitment Rules, 2005 were formulated, 120 posts were classified as executive, and for the executive cadre posts, the mode of recruitment was changed and it was now to be filled up by a limited internal competitive examination. It cannot now be allowed to be filled up by promotion of persons working on officiating basis. In our opinion there was nothing illegal in this change of policy.”
Differentiating the present case from Medini C., the bench pointed out that the employees in Medini C. had been provisionally promoted, whereas the respondents in the present dispute were only working on an officiating basis. The Court noted that in Mishri Lal, relief had been denied specifically because employees serving on an officiating arrangement acquire no vested right to be considered under superseded rules.
Addressing the broader question of whether vacancies arising prior to new rules must be governed by older rules, the bench cited the settled legal principles articulated in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Raj Kumar and Others, which overruled Y.V. Rangaiah and Others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others:
“(i) There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose;
(ii) It is now settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing rules and that such right occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates under the rules existing at that point in time; and
(iii) The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. 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 only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
Decision
Applying the ratio laid down in Raj Kumar, the Supreme Court held that the High Court could not have directed that the private respondents be considered for promotion under the rules that existed immediately prior to the 2005 Rules. Consequently, the apex court set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench and allowed BSNL’s appeals.
Case Details:
Case Title: The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. G.N. Mani Ravinder and Others Etc.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No(s). 12966-12967 of 2026
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Date: September 17, 2026
