Right To Promotion Does Not Exist Under Repealed Rules Following Policy Restructuring: Supreme Court

"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" Supreme Court, in a ruling dated September 17, 2026, held that employees do not possess a vested right to be considered for promotion under repealed service rules, especially when the government has undertaken a conscious policy decision to restructure vacancies.

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that there is no universal rule requiring vacancies to be filled according to the law existing at the time they arose, particularly when subsequent statutory rules have been enacted and a new recruitment policy implemented.

The dispute arose between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and several employees working as 'Rajbhasha Adhikari' (formerly Assistant Director - Official Language) on an officiating basis. These employees sought regularisation and promotion based on administrative instructions and recruitment rules that existed prior to the enactment of the 2005 Rules. The High Court had originally ruled in favour of the employees, directing BSNL to consider their promotions without reference to the tests prescribed in the 2005 Rules, leading to the current appeal before the Apex Court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether officiating employees acquire a vested right to promotion under rules that were in force when vacancies initially arose, despite the subsequent introduction of new statutory recruitment rules. The Court was also tasked with determining whether the earlier judgment in Mishri Lal or the later ruling in Medini C. governed the rights of these specific employees.

Court Clarifies Absence Of Vested Right

The Court meticulously distinguished the factual matrix of the present case from the precedent in Medini C. while reaffirming the principles established in Mishri Lal. The bench noted that in the present case, as in Mishri Lal, the writ petitioners were merely officiating against the posts and had never been regularly appointed through the prescribed departmental promotion committees.

"It is now settled that when 2005 Rules were formulated, 120 posts were classified as executive and the power of recruitment was changed and such posts were to be filled up by internal competitive examination, the said posts could not be filled up by promotion by the persons working on officiating basis," the Court observed.

No Universal Rule For Retrospective Application

The Court placed heavy reliance on the recent legal position adopted in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, which effectively overturned the broader interpretation of the Y.V. Rangaiah precedent. The bench held that government policy decisions regarding the restructuring of cadres and recruitment methods are subject only to the test of reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution.

"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," the Court emphasized. It further clarified that an employee does not acquire a vested right to promotion in accordance with repealed rules if the government has taken a conscious decision to change its policy.

Policy Justification Under Article 14

The Court underscored that the government holds the authority to decide not to fill vacancies arising prior to an amendment if it aligns with a new restructuring policy. The essential requirement is that such policy decisions must remain fair and reasonable. Finding no illegality in the transition to the 2005 Rules which necessitated a competitive examination, the Court held that the High Court erred in directing consideration under the prior, repealed regime.

"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," the bench concluded.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by BSNL and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, affirming that the respondents had no legal entitlement to be promoted under the superseded rules.

Date of Decision: 17 September 2026