2026 Supreme(SC) 619

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Jagdish Prasad and Others – Appellants
Versus
P.M. Manoj Kumar and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9041 of 2019
Decided On : 27-05-2026

Promotions are governed by the statutory rules in force at the time of consideration, not those prevailing when vacancies arose. Candidates hold no vested right to be considered under repealed provisions, and legislative substitution effectively replaces old rules with new ones for all ongoing processes.

Headnote:(A) Service Laws - Promotion - Recruitment Rules - Accrual of vacancies - There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose - Public servants do not possess a vested right to be considered under repealed rules; the right to be considered for promotion is governed exclusively by rules in force at the time the actual consideration for promotion takes place. (Paras 24, 25)

(B) Statutory Interpretation - Amendment by substitution - Impact - Substitution of a provision results in the deletion of the older provision and its replacement by the new one, making the new rule operative and excluding the previous one unless specifically saved by legislation - Ad hoc promotions granted subject to the outcome of litigation do not confer vested rights. (Paras 29, 30)

Facts of the case:
Disputes arose within a police administration regarding the criteria for promotion from a lower rank to a higher technical rank. The disagreement centered on whether the educational qualifications and selection criteria prescribed in subsequent recruitment rules were applicable, or if older rules prevalent at the time of vacancy accrual held legal weight. Certain personnel had been promoted on an ad-hoc basis subject to the final outcome of the pending litigation.

Findings of Court:
The court clarified that the appointing authority maintains the prerogative not to fill vacancies through promotion during periods of cadre restructuring or policy shifts. There is no statutory mandate compelling the administration to adhere to repealed criteria for posts that remained unfilled, provided the current policy decisions are fair and reasonable. Consequently, the reliance on prior judicial interpretations that linked vacancies to the rules prevalent at the time of their accrual was found to be incorrectly applied.

Issues: Whether promotional vacancies must be filled according to the rules in force at the time the vacancies occurred or according to the statutory rules in force at the time when the actual consideration for promotion is initiated.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that candidates do not hold a vested right to be considered for promotion under obsolete or repealed rules. The governing principle is that the rules in force at the time of consideration for promotion are the only relevant statutory standards. Amendments by substitution effectively replace the old legal framework, and ad-hoc appointments made subject to judicial outcomes do not provide an exemption from current, valid rules.

Result: Civil appeal allowed.