New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the Kerala High Court judgments directing Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) to consider the promotion of certain Hindi Translators to the post of Rajbhasha Adhikari under recruitment rules that had ceased to operate before the consideration of their promotion.
A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that employees working only on an officiating basis do not acquire a vested right to claim promotion under superseded recruitment rules.
The case concerned employees appointed as Hindi Translators in different grades who were later working as Assistant Director (Official Language), a post subsequently renamed Rajbhasha Adhikari. They claimed that their promotion should be considered under the pre-2005 regime without requiring them to appear for the written test introduced under the Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005.
The employees relied upon a 1994 administrative circular under which Hindi Translators were stated to be eligible for automatic promotion to the post of Hindi Officer. They also relied upon the Assistant Director (Official Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002, which contemplated filling 120 existing vacancies by promotion of eligible Hindi Translators.
However, the Supreme Court noted that the 2002 Rules were never brought into force and the proposed benefit of promotion did not materialise. Subsequently, the 2005 Rules came into operation. These rules renamed the post as Rajbhasha Adhikari and prescribed a written test for promotion. Where sufficient eligible candidates were not available, the remaining vacancies could be filled through direct recruitment.
Supreme Court Distinguishes Medini C. Case
The principal issue before the Court was whether the employees were covered by the earlier judgment in CMD/Chairman, BSNL v. Mishri Lal or the subsequent three-judge Bench judgment in Medini C. v. BSNL.
The Supreme Court found that the employees in the present case had never been promoted to the post of Rajbhasha Adhikari either on a regular or ad hoc basis. They had only worked in an officiating capacity.
According to the Court, this crucial distinction brought the case within the ratio of Mishri Lal, rather than Medini C.
In Medini C., the employees had been provisionally promoted under the 2002 Rules and subsequently regularised before the 2005 Rules came into force. That factual circumstance was completely absent in the present case.
No Vested Right Under Repealed Recruitment Rules
The Bench also relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, which reconsidered the principle earlier laid down in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao concerning vacancies arising under an earlier set of recruitment rules.
The Court reiterated that an employee has a right to be considered for promotion under the rules existing at the time when eligible candidates are considered. The mere fact that a vacancy arose when an earlier set of rules was in force does not create a vested right to have that vacancy filled under those repealed rules.
The Court observed that:
“A candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing rules…”
The Supreme Court further held that the government can adopt a fair and reasonable policy consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution and decide not to fill vacancies under superseded rules.
Kerala High Court Orders Set Aside
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the Kerala High Court could not have directed BSNL to consider the respondents’ promotion under the rules prevailing before the 2005 Rules.
The Court accordingly allowed BSNL’s appeals and set aside the common judgments of the Kerala High Court. The pending applications were also disposed of.
The judgment reinforces the principle that merely working in an officiating capacity does not confer a vested right to promotion under an earlier recruitment regime, particularly where the employee was never substantively or even ad hoc promoted under the superseded rules.
Case: The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. G.N. Mani Ravinder and Others
Civil Appeal Nos. 12966-12967 of 2026
2026 INSC 1007
