BSNL Officiating Staff Cannot Claim Vested Right to Promotion Under Repealed Rules: Supreme Court

In a significant ruling on service law, the Supreme Court of India on September 17, 2026, overturned concurrent decisions of the Telangana High Court, holding that employees working on an officiating basis have no vested right to be considered for promotion under repealed rules. A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed appeals by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and set aside directions that had ordered the corporation to promote Hindi Translators to the post of Rajbhasha Adhikari without requiring them to clear the written test mandated by the 2005 recruitment rules.

Background of the Dispute

The case involved Hindi Translators in the Department of Telecommunications who were working as Assistant Directors (Official Language) – later renamed Rajbhasha Adhikari – purely on an officiating basis. Under an administrative order of 1994, they were entitled to automatic promotion upon completing specified years of service. However, these promotions were never effected. The 2002 Recruitment Rules, which sought to fill 120 vacancies from eligible translators, were also never brought into operation.

In 2005, the Department framed new rules that renamed the post and introduced a limited internal competitive examination as the mode for promotion. When BSNL required the officiating employees to take this test, they challenged the 2005 Rules before the Telangana High Court. The Single Judge directed BSNL to consider their promotion under the pre-existing rules without reference to the written test, a decision affirmed by the Division Bench. The employees relied on the 2022 Supreme Court judgment in Medini C. v. BSNL to argue that their rights had crystallized under the earlier regime.

Arguments from Both Sides

BSNL, represented by Mr. Piyush Sharma, contended that the case was squarely covered by the 2011 decision in BSNL v. Mishri Lal , where the Court had denied relief to officiating employees. The Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, appearing for the Department of Telecommunications, reinforced that no vested right existed under rules that were never implemented.

Countering this, Mr. G. Arudhra Rao, counsel for the private respondents, argued that Medini C. had distinguished Mishri Lal on facts. In Medini C. , the employees had been provisionally promoted, and the Court had upheld their right to be regularized under the 2002 Rules as a one-time measure. Since the respondents were also officiating before 2005, he submitted, the same principle should apply to them.

The Court’s Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court closely examined the factual distinctions between the two precedents. It noted that in Mishri Lal , the employees were purely on local officiating arrangements, whereas in Medini C. , they had been provisionally promoted —a status that conferred a stronger claim. The present respondents, the Court observed, fell squarely within the Mishri Lal category, as they were never regularly promoted or even promoted on ad hoc basis.

Significantly, the bench also applied the principle laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar (2023), which overruled the earlier Y.V. Rangaiah line of authority. The Court reiterated three key propositions: (i) there is no universal rule that vacancies must be filled under the law existing when they arose; (ii) a candidate’s right to consideration arises only under the rules in force at the time of consideration; and (iii) the government is entitled to take a policy decision not to fill vacancies under repealed rules, as long as it is fair and reasonable.

Quoting from Raj Kumar , the bench stated:

“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.”

Key Observations

The Court drew a sharp distinction between officiating and provisional promotion, noting:

“In Mishri Lal , the writ petitioners were working as ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’ on officiating basis like in the present case; whereas in Medini C. , the writ petitioners were provisionally promoted. Thus, the cases of the private respondents were covered under Mishri Lal wherein this Court denied relief on the ground that since they were working on officiating basis, there is no vested right in them to be considered for promotion under the old Rules.”

The bench also underscored that the 2002 Rules were never brought into operation, further weakening the respondents’ claim of any crystallized right.

Final Decision

Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the common impugned judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Telangana High Court. The effect of the ruling is that the officiating Hindi Translators must now undergo the written examination prescribed under the 2005 Recruitment Rules to be considered for promotion to the post of Rajbhasha Adhikari. The decision reinforces the principle that policy changes in recruitment methods apply to all candidates unless they have acquired a specific, vested right—something that mere officiating service does not confer.