The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 17) reiterated that a promotional post arising under the applicable Rules need not necessarily be filled under those Rules, particularly where they have since been repealed. The Court held that such promotional posts can be filled up under the new Rules, which prescribe new methods of recruitment.

“The employee does not acquire any vested right for being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government.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.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while setting aside the concurrent findings of the Single and Division Bench of the Telangana High Court, which directed the BSNL to consider the promotion of its employees based on the repealed Rules, without adverting to the written test mandated under the new Rule.

The private respondents-writ petitioners are working as Assistant Director (Official Language), renamed as 'Rajbhasha Adhikari', on an officiating basis. They relied on the 2021 Supreme Court judgment of Medini C. and Others v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others to seek a vested right of promotion based on the Rules under which the promotional vacancy arose.

The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions, directing the BSNL to consider the cases of the private respondents for promotion to the post of 'Rajbhasha Adhikari' without reference to the test prescribed under the Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005 and based on the rights that accrued to the private respondents-writ petitioners under the Rules that existed earlier thereto.

The said order of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court under the common impugned judgments.

Allowing the BNSL's appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra rejected the Respondents' reliance on Medini C. to claim a vested right of appointment to the promotional post under the old rules. Instead, relying on its 2011 judgment of CMD/Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others v. Mishri Lal and Others, the Court held that the Respondents' case was squarely covered by Mishri Lal, not Medici C.

Unlike Mishri Lal, in Medici C. the employees were provisionally promoted to the captioned post; however, in Mishri Lal, the employees were working as 'Rajbhasha Adhikari' on an officiating basis, like in the present case.

“…the cases of the private respondents-writ petitioners were covered under the judgment rendered by this Court in Mishri Lal (supra) wherein this Court denied the relief to the writ petitioners only on the ground that since they were working on the next higher post only on officiating basis, there is no vested right in them to be considered for promotion under the old Rules. In the subsequent decision in the matter of Medini C. (supra), the writ petitioners were provisionally promoted and, thus, this Court distinguished the earlier decision of this Court in the matter of Mishri Lal (supra).”, the Court observed.

Moreover, the Court cited State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 502 to negate the Respondents' argument, holding that there is no universal rule that vacancies must necessarily be filled under the rules existing on the date when the vacancies arose.

“...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.”, the Court said.

As a result, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: THE BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER VERSUS G.N. MANI RAVINDER AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 951

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Piyush Sharma, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Udit Dedhiya, Adv. Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Mr. Kamal Digpaul, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Dixit, Adv. Ms. Aastha Singh, Adv. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. G. Arudhra Rao, Arguing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Kaustub Narendran, Adv. Mr. Rohan Andrew Naik, Adv. Mr. Narveer Yadav, Adv. Mr. Yash Yadav, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Purushotham, AOR Mrs. Bhawna Piplani, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Adv.

Also Read: No Universal Rule That Vacancies Must Be Filled As Per Rules Which Existed When Vacancies Arose : Supreme Court

Govt Servant Has No Vested Right To Seek Promotion As Per Old Rules Merely Because Vacancies Arose Earlier: Supreme Court