The Supreme Court of India has ruled that public servants do not possess a vested right to be considered for promotion under repealed rules, clarifying that promotions must be governed strictly by the statutory rules in force at the time the consideration takes place rather than when the vacancies arose. A division bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti set aside a Calcutta High Court judgment which had directed the Andaman & Nicobar Administration to fill promotional vacancies of Assistant Sub Inspector-Executive (ASI-Executive) under older, repealed recruitment rules. The apex court held that the 2016 amended rules, which abolished the written examination and matriculation requirement to restore a 100 percent seniority-cum-fitness promotion method, must govern all pending promotions.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute originated within the cadre of Constables under the Andaman & Nicobar Police Department, who were subsequently promoted to Head Constables. Historically, their service conditions were governed by the Andaman & Nicobar Police Manual, 1963, and Standing Order No. 5349 dated August 2, 1999. Under these guidelines, the only prerequisite for a Head Constable to be promoted to ASI-Executive was the successful completion of the Police Training College (PTC) Course, on a seniority-cum-fitness basis.
However, on March 31, 2008, the Administration notified the Andaman & Nicobar Administration (Police Department) Group ‘C’ Post Recruitment Rules, 2008. These rules classified the post of ASI-Executive as a “selection post” and introduced a new minimum educational qualification of Matriculation (10th standard pass) for a newly created 66-2/3 percent selection track, which was to be filled via a promotion test. The remaining 33-1/3 percent of posts were reserved for a non-selection (seniority-cum-fitness) track. Following this, the Director General of Police issued Standing Order No. 9091 on October 4, 2008, establishing a rigorous 200-mark selection test comprising a written exam, outdoor drill, musketry, physical fitness, service records, and an interview.
The recruitment rules were amended again on June 28, 2010, which continued the matriculation requirement and the 66-2/3 percent selection versus 33-1/3 percent seniority-cum-fitness split, but clarified that the primary recruitment channel would be “100 percent by promotion” from amongst Head Constables instead of “promotion failing which by deputation”.
On June 6, 2014, the Office of the Director General of Police issued a Circular inviting applications from eligible Head Constables for the promotion test under the 66-2/3 percent selection quota. This circular prompted non-matriculate Head Constables, who had entered the service when the educational qualification was the 8th Standard, to challenge the rules and the circular by filing O.A. No. 351/2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Calcutta Bench, Circuit Bench at Port Blair.
While the litigation was pending, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) convened on November 12, 2014, and published “List B” on November 13, 2014, promoting 44 Head Constables to the rank of ASI-Executive on an ad-hoc basis.
On March 21, 2016, the Administration notified the Amended Recruitment Rules of 2016, which abolished the selection test and matriculation requirement, shifting the promotion method to 100 percent seniority-cum-fitness, effectively restoring the position as it existed prior to March 31, 2008.
Consequently, on April 19, 2016, the Tribunal dismissed O.A. No. 351/2014 as infructuous, noting that the 2016 Rules had fully addressed the grievances of the original applicants and would govern future promotions. The ad-hoc promotees under the 2010 Rules (Respondent Nos. 1 to 28) challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the Calcutta High Court.
On August 10, 2016, the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, ruling that the accrued vacancies must be filled in accordance with the rules prevailing when those vacancies accrued (the 2010 Rules) rather than the newly amended 2016 Rules, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Marripati Nagaraja.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellants (Original Applicants before the Tribunal): The Appellants, represented by learned Counsel Mr. P.C. Das, argued that:
- The 2008 Rules introducing a matriculation requirement were unjustified because the department had never previously advised them to upgrade their educational qualifications for promotional prospects.
- As per the Delhi Police Manual, which the Administration generally follows to keep benefits on par, promotion to ASI is based entirely on 100 percent seniority-cum-fitness after five years of service and completion of a Police Training Course, without any examination or higher educational qualifications.
- The Competent Authority had failed to consult the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) prior to notifying the 2008 and 2010 Rules, in violation of general guidelines for framing Recruitment Rules.
- The 66-2/3 percent selection quota forced senior non-matriculate officers to work under junior officers, causing professional stigma.
- Citing the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench decision in State of Himachal Pradesh & Others v. Raj Kumar & Others, they argued that promotions must be governed strictly by the statutory rules in force at the time selection is initiated or when consideration takes place, not when the vacancies occurred. Since the 2016 Rules were already in effect and unchallenged, they must form the sole legal basis for all regular promotions.
The Contesting Respondents (Ad-hoc Promotees): The Respondents, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Debajyoti Basu and ASG Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, contended that:
- The 2016 Rules, which replaced the 2010 Rules, operate prospectively and cannot disturb “past and closed” transactions.
- The 2014 selection process was a “past and closed” transaction, as the DPC had met and finalised “List B” on November 13, 2014, sixteen months before the 2016 amendment took effect.
- Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 safeguards rights that have accrued and proceedings that have commenced under a repealed provision, unless there is a contrary intention in the legislation itself.
- Under the “consideration-date test,” a selection process must be governed by the rules in force on the actual date of consideration. Since the DPC met and finalised the selection while the 2010 Rules were in force, subsequent amendments cannot be applied “in reverse” to undo completed consideration.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the core legal question of whether promotions should be governed by the rules in force when the vacancies accrued or by the rules in force when the promotion is actually considered.
1. Overruling of the Y.V. Rangaiah Principle
The bench pointed out that the High Court’s decision was based on Marripati Nagaraja and Others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, which applied the principle established in Y.V. Rangaiah and others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others (that older vacancies must be filled under the rules in force when they arose).
Justice Bhatti, writing for the bench, noted that a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Others v. Raj Kumar & Others had thoroughly reviewed the jurisprudence and expressly overruled the Rangaiah principle. The Court quoted the following observation from Raj Kumar:
“The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah 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. It is hereby overruled.”
The Court also referenced its division bench decision in State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash (2026 INSC 505), which reiterated that:
- There is no universal rule that vacancies must be filled in accordance with the rules that existed on the date the vacancies arose.
- An employee only has the right to be considered for promotion based on the statutory rules in force on the date the actual consideration for promotion takes place, not retrospectively.
Applying these precedents, the bench observed:
“In light of the precedents on the point, we are of the view that the basis in the impugned Judgment by referring to Marripati Nagaraja (supra) is incorrect and needs to be interfered with and set aside accordingly.”
2. Status of the 2014 Ad-hoc Promotions
The Supreme Court evaluated the Respondents’ contention that their 2014 promotion was a “completed act” and could not be disturbed by the 2016 Rules. The Court examined the wording of the Promotion Order dated November 13, 2014, noting that it expressly stated the promotions were purely ad-hoc, allowed for reversion to the substantive rank of Head Constable at any time, did not confer any claim or right to seniority, and were explicitly made “subject to the outcome of OA No. 351/00078/AN/2014”.
The Court observed:
“Therefore, the reading of the ad hoc Order of promotion as ASI- Executive does not permit the conclusion that the promotions in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 to 28 either became final or create a vested right in them. Hence, it cannot be treated as a “completed act”.”
3. Legal Effect of Rule “Substitution”
The Court discussed the legislative implication of the word “substituted” used in the 2016 Rules. Referencing Gottumukkala Venkata Krishamraju v. Union of India & Others and Zile Singh v. State of Haryana & Others, the Court noted that substitution has the effect of deleting the old provision and making the new provision operative as if the old words were scored out and replaced.
The Court held:
“The Raj Kumar (supra) case held that the law in force as of the date of consideration is applicable to the filling of vacancies or promotional posts. Keeping in perspective, the law declared by this Court, and reverting to the circumstances of the case at hand, we note that the word “substituted”, even if given its logical and consistent effect, means that the consideration for promotion took place only under the 2016 Rules.”
The bench further clarified:
“Therefore, the Appellants cannot also claim for consideration of their cases for the vacancies available between 2010 and 2014. At best, the consideration under the applicable Rules occurred in 2016; a few were selected, and a few were not. Thus, the cases of all eligible candidates, including Appellants and Respondents No. 1 to 28, will have to be considered strictly in accordance with the 2016 Rules immediately.”
The Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal and set aside the impugned Calcutta High Court judgment. The bench summarized its findings and issued the following directives:
- The impugned High Court Judgment is unsustainable and is set aside.
- The 2016 Rules restored the status quo ante requirement for promotion to the post of ASI-Executive in the Union Territory of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands (100 percent promotion on a seniority-cum-fitness basis).
- The promotions made under the Circular issued in 2016, following the procedure in force, are not the subject matter of the present original application.
- The existing vacancies of ASI-Executive must be filled under the 2016 Rules within two months from the date of the judgment.
Case Details
Case Title: Jagdish Prasad and Others v. P.M. Manoj Kumar and Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 9041 of 2019
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
Date: May 27, 2026
