The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. G.N. Mani Ravinder and Others Etc. | 2026 INSC 1007 | 17 September 2026
What the case was about
These appeals arose from a long-running dispute between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and a group of its employees who were originally appointed as Hindi Translators in the Department of Telecommunications. Although the employees were later asked to perform the duties of senior officers, they had never been formally promoted to the higher rank. The dispute turned on a subtle but consequential distinction: does an employee who is merely “officiating” in a higher post—working under administrative instructions rather than a formal promotion order—acquire a legal right to be considered for permanent promotion under the old, more favourable rules, even after the employer enacts fresh statutory recruitment rules that introduce a written examination? The Supreme Court was called upon to settle whether such officiating arrangements create a vested right that survives the enactment of new recruitment rules, or whether the employees must instead compete under the new framework. The conflict was sharpened by the High Court’s intervention, which had directed BSNL to promote the employees under the older norms and bypass the new written test entirely. (para 8; para 10; para 12)
The key facts
The private respondents were appointed as Hindi Translators. Administrative instructions dated 28 April 1994 entitled Hindi Translators to automatic promotion to Hindi Officer after specified years of service, but the respondents were never promoted. (para 8) The Department subsequently framed the Assistant Director (Official Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002, which were never brought into operation. (para 8) Thereafter, the Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005 were enacted, introducing a written test for evaluating eligibility for promotion and changing the manner in which the higher posts were to be filled. (para 3) The respondents were working on an officiating basis in the higher post, but were never regularly promoted, nor were they appointed even on an ad hoc or provisional basis. Because they lacked a regular appointment or the recommendation of a Departmental Promotion Committee duly approved by the Union Public Service Commission, they had no vested right to promotion under the old rules. (para 8) When the 2005 Rules were challenged, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed BSNL to consider the respondents for promotion under the pre-2005 framework without requiring them to sit for the written test. A Division Bench affirmed that view, prompting BSNL to approach the Supreme Court.
The questions before the Court
The Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Ujjal Bhuyan had to resolve three interlinked questions of law and policy. First, were the respondents’ cases governed by the ratio in Medini C. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited—where the Supreme Court had protected employees who were provisionally or ad hoc promoted—or by the earlier ruling in CMD/Chairman, BSNL v. Mishri Lal, which dealt with employees who, like the present respondents, were working only on an officiating basis? Second, does an employee working purely on an officiating footing under administrative instructions acquire a vested right to be considered for promotion under old rules when subsequently enacted statutory recruitment rules prescribe a competitive written examination? Third, did the High Court err in directing that the respondents be considered under the rules existing immediately before the 2005 Rules, contrary to the principles laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar? (para 10; para 11; para 12)
What the Court decided and why
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s judgments.
It held that the respondents’ case squarely fell within Mishri Lal and not Medini C. The Court noted that the respondents were never regularly promoted at any point under either the 1984 Rules or the 2002 Rules, nor had they ever been appointed on the basis of a recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee duly approved by the Union Public Service Commission. (para 8) Because they were engaged only on a local officiating basis under the 1994 administrative instructions, they had no vested right for promotion to the higher post under the 2002 Rules, which in any event had never been brought into operation. (para 8) The Court distinguished Medini C. on the ground that the writ petitioners there had been provisionally promoted to the higher grade, a factual element entirely absent in the present case where the respondents remained purely officiating throughout. (para 10)
The Court then relied on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar to reject the High Court’s direction that pre-2005 Rules should govern vacancies that had arisen earlier. It reiterated that there is no universal rule that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of the law that existed when they arose. (para 11) Instead, a candidate’s right to be considered accrues under the rules existing at the time of actual consideration. (para 11) The government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill vacancies that arose prior to an amendment under the old rules, and employees do not acquire a vested right to be considered under repealed rules, provided the decision is fair and reasonable and withstands scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution. (para 11) Applying this ratio, the Court concluded that the High Court could not have directed the respondents’ cases to be considered under the pre-2005 Rules, and it set aside the common impugned judgments. (para 12)
Why it matters
The ruling carries weight for government and public-sector employees who may be working in higher posts on an officiating or “acting” basis pending regular promotion. It clarifies that merely discharging the functions of a senior post under administrative instructions does not freeze the applicable promotion criteria or create an indefeasible right to be judged by outdated rules. Employers remain free to restructure cadres, reclassify posts, and introduce competitive examinations prospectively—even for vacancies that originated before the new rules—so long as the change is reasonable and non-arbitrary under Article 14. By drawing a sharp line between ad hoc or provisional promotions and purely officiating arrangements, the judgment reinforces the government’s flexibility in framing recruitment policy while reminding employees that informal acting arrangements do not automatically convert into vested promotion entitlements. At the same time, the safeguard of Article 14 ensures that any such policy change must still meet the test of fairness and non-arbitrariness, preserving a balance between administrative efficiency and employee protection. For public-sector employers, the decision affirms that long-pending vacancies need not be treated as frozen in time, and that cadre reforms can be implemented without being shackled by the administrative arrangements of the past, provided the new regime is applied even-handedly.