Officiating Service Is Not a Vested Right: Supreme Court Applies the 2005 Rules to BSNL Rajbhasha Promotions

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has set aside High Court judgments that directed BSNL to promote officiating Assistant Directors (Official Language) without the written test introduced by the 2005 Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules. It held the case was governed by Mishri Lal, not Medini C., because the respondents were never promoted on a regular or ad hoc basis, and that under State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar candidates are considered under the rules in force when they are considered.

The private respondents worked on an officiating basis as Assistant Director (Official Language), later renamed Rajbhasha Adhikari. An administrative order of 28 April 1994 provided for promotion of Hindi Translators to Hindi Officer after set periods of service, and the 2002 Recruitment Rules envisaged filling 120 existing vacancies by promoting eligible translators, but those Rules were never brought into operation. The 2005 Rules renamed the post, introduced a written test and allowed direct recruitment where enough candidates were not available.

The respondents challenged the 2005 Rules. A Single Judge of the High Court directed that they be considered for promotion without the test, on the basis of the earlier Rules, and a Division Bench affirmed. BSNL, supported by the Department of Telecommunications, appealed.

The Key Question Before the Court

Are officiating employees entitled to promotion under the pre-2005 rules, or must they take the test prescribed by the 2005 Rules?

Mishri Lal, Medini C. and Raj Kumar

In Mishri Lal, the Court had held that employees who were never regularly promoted and only officiated under the 1994 instructions had no vested right under the 2002 Rules, and that the 2005 Rules were a lawful policy change. In Medini C., a three-judge bench distinguished Mishri Lal because the employees there had been promoted on an officiating, ad hoc or provisional basis before 2005 and recognised under the one-time measure in the 2002 Rules.

The Court found the present respondents were like those in Mishri Lal: they were only officiating and had never been promoted on a regular or ad hoc basis. It added that State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, which overruled Y.V. Rangaiah, holds that there is no universal rule that vacancies must be filled under the law in force when they arose, that a candidate's right is to be considered under the rules in force at the time of consideration, and that the government may fairly decide not to fill earlier vacancies under repealed rules, subject to Article 14. The High Court could not, therefore, direct consideration under the pre-2005 rules.

What the Court Actually Held

• The case is governed by Mishri Lal, not Medini C.
• Officiating service, without regular or ad hoc promotion, created no vested right under the 2002 Rules.
• Following Raj Kumar, candidates are to be considered under the rules in force at the time of consideration.
• The High Court judgments were set aside and BSNL's appeals allowed.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It narrows the reach of Medini C. to employees actually promoted before 2005.
• It applies Raj Kumar to defeat claims based on rules in force when vacancies arose.
• It affects pending Rajbhasha promotion disputes in BSNL and similar bodies.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Employees

• Show actual regular, ad hoc or provisional promotion before 2005 if relying on Medini C.
• Officiating arrangements alone are unlikely to sustain a claim under earlier rules.

For Employers

• Rely on the rules in force at the time of consideration, applied fairly under Article 14.
• Keep records distinguishing officiating charge from ad hoc promotion.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Because the employees in Medini C. had been promoted before 2005, whereas these respondents only officiated.

It overruled Y.V. Rangaiah and held that candidates are considered under the rules in force at the time of consideration.

Yes, the ASG for the DoT supported the appellants.

Conclusion