Case at a Glance
Two ministerial employees in Odisha’s transport department wanted to be promoted as Assistant Regional Transport Officers (ARTO) under 1981 executive instructions, since vacancies existed before the Odisha Transport Service Rules, 2021 came into force. The State refused to hold a DPC after restructuring the ARTO post into Group B, and the Orissa High Court ordered a DPC. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that an employee has only a right to be considered under the rules in force when consideration happens, that the Government may choose not to fill pre-amendment vacancies, and that a mere request for a DPC was not an ‘act done’ saved from supersession by the 2021 Rules.
Since 1981, in the absence of cadre rules, an Executive Instruction governed recruitment and promotion to ARTO posts, under which Grade I Assistants (Senior Assistants) with five years’ service were eligible for selection by a DPC chaired by the Transport Commissioner. The respondents joined as Junior Assistants in 2013 and became Senior Assistants in 2016. In October 2017 ARTO posts were restructured from Group C to Group B and made part of the Odisha Transport Service; in 2019 the ministerial cadre was restructured and Senior Assistants redesignated as Assistant Section Officers.
In June 2021 the Transport Commissioner sought a DPC to fill 16 ARTO vacancies, but the Government rejected the proposals in July, October and December 2021. The Odisha Transport Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 came into force on 5 January 2022, and the OPSC advertised Group B posts including ARTO in December 2022. A Single Judge of the Orissa High Court quashed the rejection and directed a DPC within four weeks; a Division Bench dismissed the State’s appeals, saying State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar was “not applicable on the factual matrix”.
The Key Question Before the Court
Did employees eligible under 1981 executive instructions have an enforceable right to be considered for ARTO posts under those instructions for vacancies existing before the 2021 Rules, after the Government had restructured the cadre and declined to fill them?
Right to Consideration, Not to Promotion — and Nothing to ‘Save’
Writing for the Bench, Justice Dipankar Datta said “a glaring fallacy discernible from the order impugned before us must be noticed”: the Division Bench had brushed aside Raj Kumar without explaining why, and “Mere reference of the precedent in the passing without engaging with it in the analysis is not sufficient.” As summarised by the Court, Raj Kumar holds that a candidate has a right to be considered under the rules in force on the date consideration takes place, that the Government may decide not to fill vacancies that arose before a rule change, and that Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 03 SC CK 0023 — on which the High Court’s view effectively rested — stands impliedly overruled. “The limited right that an employee can legitimately claim is for consideration of his candidature”, and the Government cannot be compelled to fill vacancies by promotion after restructuring a cadre.
The Court held that the 1981 instructions “were put in force as a pro-tem arrangement” until cadre rules were framed, and were superseded by the 2021 Rules. The saving clause in the 2021 Rules protects only things done before supersession: “what is saved, or in this case exempted, is an act done or omitted to be done before such supersession.” A completed appointment would have been saved, but here there was neither a DPC nor an appointment — only the Transport Commissioner’s letter requesting one — so there was nothing to save. Finally, the ARTO post “was not a promotional post but a selection post”, and “the manner of selection is a matter of policy which completely vests with the Government”, open to challenge only if arbitrary. The Division Bench’s view was held to be erroneous.
What the Court Actually Held
- An employee has no vested right to promotion; the limited right is to be considered under the rules in force when consideration takes place (State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar applied).
- The 1981 executive instructions were a pro-tem arrangement superseded by the Odisha Transport Service Rules, 2021.
- A request to convene a DPC is not an ‘act done’ saved from supersession; only completed acts such as appointments are saved.
- ARTO is a selection post and the method of selection is a matter of Government policy; the High Court’s orders were set aside, with parties bearing their own costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reaffirms that Raj Kumar, not the older Y.V. Rangaiah line, governs claims that pre-amendment vacancies must be filled under old rules.
- It clarifies how saving clauses in new recruitment rules operate — only completed acts survive supersession.
- It reminds High Courts that a binding precedent cited by a party must be engaged with, not set aside in a line.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Government Employees
- Promotion claims based on vacancies arising before new rules face an uphill task after Raj Kumar and this ruling.
- Your enforceable right is to fair consideration under the rules in force at the time of consideration.
- Check whether a DPC actually met or appointments were made before new rules came in — only completed acts are saved.
For Counsel
- For the State: rely on Raj Kumar and on the policy discretion to restructure cadres and choose the method of recruitment.
- For employees: focus on arbitrariness in the policy choice, the only ground the Court left open.
- When a binding precedent is cited, ensure the court’s order engages with it — non-engagement is itself a ground of challenge.
Key Takeaways
- No vested right to promotion under superseded rules.
- Right to consideration is under the rules in force at the time of consideration.
- A DPC request is not a saved ‘act done’.
- High Court orders directing a DPC set aside.
Frequently Asked Questions
If vacancies arose before new recruitment rules, must they be filled under the old rules?
No. Applying State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar, the Court held that the Government may decide not to fill such vacancies, and employees have no vested right to the old rules.
What does the saving clause in new service rules protect?
Only acts done or omitted before supersession, such as a completed appointment. A mere request to convene a DPC was held not to be such an act.
Is ARTO in Odisha a promotion post?
The Court held it was a selection post, and that the manner of selection is a policy matter for the Government, open to challenge only if arbitrary.
Conclusion
State of Odisha v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash, (2026) 05 SC CK 0449 applies Raj Kumar firmly: employees cannot insist on promotion under superseded instructions merely because vacancies existed earlier, especially where the Government has restructured the cadre and adopted new rules.
Practical takeaway: In promotion disputes straddling a change in recruitment rules, the decisive question is which rules were in force when consideration actually happened — and whether any completed act exists to be saved.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com