Supreme Court Clarifies Promotion Law: Old Vacancies Do Not Give Employees a Right to Promotion Under Superseded Rules

Held: The Supreme Court held that an employee has no vested right to be promoted merely because vacancies existed under an earlier regime; at best, the employee has a right to be considered in accordance with the rules in force on the date when consideration actually takes place. The Court reaffirmed the law laid down in State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar, which overruled the broad proposition in Y.V. Rangaiah that vacancies must necessarily be filled under the rules existing on the date they arose. The Court further held that once statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 supersede earlier executive instructions, no direction can be issued to convene a DPC under the superseded instructions unless an appointment or completed act had already taken place and was saved by the new rules.

Summary: The dispute arose from the claim of Sreepati Ranjan Dash and Aditya Bhanjan Sahoo, who were working as Assistant Section Officers under the Transport Department, Odisha, and sought consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer under executive instructions issued in 1981. Those instructions had operated as an interim arrangement pending finalisation of cadre rules and provided for selection through a Departmental Promotion Committee. Before any DPC was convened or appointment made, the Odisha Transport Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 came into force under Article 309 of the Constitution, superseding earlier rules, instructions and orders and prescribing a different method of recruitment through competitive examination conducted by the OPSC. The High Court directed the Transport Commissioner to convene a DPC and consider the respondents under the earlier executive instructions. The Supreme Court found this approach legally erroneous, holding that the High Court failed to properly apply the binding precedent in Raj Kumar and wrongly treated a mere recommendation or request to convene a DPC as a completed act saved by the 2021 Rules. The Court also noted that the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer was a selection post, not an automatic promotional post, and that the State was competent to restructure the cadre and alter the mode of recruitment unless such policy was shown to be arbitrary.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Odisha, set aside the common judgment and order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Orissa dismissing the State’s intra-court appeals, and also set aside the orders directing convening of a DPC under the earlier executive instructions. The Court held that the respondents could not claim appointment or consideration under the superseded executive instructions after the 2021 Rules had come into force, and that the Government was entitled to fill the posts of Assistant Regional Transport Officer in accordance with the new statutory rules. Interim orders, if any, were vacated, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.