Mere Officiation Creates No Vested Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Says Vacancies Need Not Be Filled Under Rules Existing When They Arose

Case Name: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. G.N. Mani Ravinder and Others Etc.

Date of Judgment: 17 September 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 1007

Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Held: The Supreme Court held that an employee merely officiating on a higher post does not acquire a vested right to regular promotion under the recruitment rules or administrative instructions that existed before the applicable rules were amended.

The respondents were working as Assistant Director (Official Language), subsequently renamed “Rajbhasha Adhikari”, only on an officiating basis. They had never been promoted to that post either regularly or on an ad hoc basis through the prescribed selection procedure. Their cases were therefore governed by CMD/Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Mishri Lal, (2011) , rather than Medini C. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, (2022).

The Court further held that there is no universal rule requiring vacancies to be filled according to the service rules prevailing on the date when those vacancies arose. An employee’s right is only to be considered under the rules in force on the date of actual consideration. The Government may consciously decide not to fill earlier vacancies or may restructure the recruitment process, provided its decision is fair, reasonable and consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the respondents could not demand promotion without appearing in the limited internal competitive examination prescribed by the Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005.

Summary: The Department of Telecommunications had created different grades of Hindi Translators, with Hindi Officer being the promotional post. Administrative instructions dated 28 April 1994 provided for the automatic promotion of Hindi Translators in Grades I, II and III after completing three, five and eight years of service, respectively. The respondents, however, were not promoted under those instructions.

The Assistant Director (Official Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002 were subsequently framed, under which the post of Hindi Officer was redesignated as Assistant Director (Official Language). Although the 2002 Rules contemplated filling 120 existing vacancies through promotion of eligible Hindi Translators, those Rules were never implemented.

Thereafter, the 2005 Rules renamed the post as Rajbhasha Adhikari and required eligible employees to clear a limited internal competitive examination. The respondents challenged this requirement and claimed that their cases should be considered under the earlier rules, without subjecting them to the examination.

The Single Judge accepted their claim and directed BSNL to consider them for promotion without reference to the test prescribed under the 2005 Rules. The Division Bench affirmed that decision. BSNL consequently approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court found that the respondents were only officiating against the higher post and had never received regular, ad hoc or provisional promotions. Their position was therefore materially similar to the employees in Mishri Lal, who were held not to possess any vested promotional right. The Court distinguished Medini C., where the employees had been provisionally promoted before the later rules came into force and had asserted rights arising from the one-time measure contained in the 2002 Rules.

Relying upon State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, (2023) , the Court reiterated that the earlier rule in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao—that vacancies must ordinarily be filled under the rules existing when they arose—is no longer a universally applicable proposition. A candidate acquires a right to consideration only under the rules existing when the process of consideration takes place. The High Court, therefore, could not direct BSNL to apply the pre-2005 recruitment regime.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed BSNL’s appeals and set aside the common judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench. The respondents were held not entitled to consideration for promotion under the rules or instructions preceding the 2005 Rules and could not avoid the examination prescribed under the prevailing recruitment framework.