No vested right exists to fill vacancies under recruitment rules in force at their occurrence.

Eight applicants, qualified archaeologists working in or associated with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), challenged the decision of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to return a recruitment dossier dated March 25, 2025

The dossier sought to fill seven vacancies for the post of Superintending Archaeologist through direct recruitment, as per the Recruitment Rules (RRs) of 2019, which allocated 25% of posts to direct recruitment

These vacancies arose between 2018 and 2024 while the 2019 Rules were in effect

However, the UPSC returned the dossier in mid-2025 following the notification of the Recruitment Rules, 2025, which mandated 100% promotion for these posts

The applicants contended that vacancies must be filled according to the rules in force at the time of their occurrence, citing an Office Memorandum dated April 10, 1989

1. Whether vacancies arising prior to the amendment of Recruitment Rules must necessarily be filled in accordance with the rules that existed at the time the vacancies arose

2. Whether the applicants acquired a vested or indefeasible legal right to be considered under the Recruitment Rules, 2019, despite a subsequent policy change in 2025

The Tribunal applied the principle that there is no universal rule requiring vacancies to be filled based on the law existing on the date they arose, as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar (2022), which explicitly overruled the earlier mandate in V. V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao (1983)

The court noted that a candidate’s right to be considered is governed by the "rule in force" at the time the actual consideration for recruitment takes place

Furthermore, the government possesses the entitlement to make conscious policy decisions to change recruitment methods, and such decisions do not generally warrant judicial interference unless proven arbitrary or mala fide

The Tribunal reasoned that although the vacancies occurred while the 2019 Rules were active, the recruitment process had not significantly progressed beyond the submission of a dossier; specifically, no advertisement had been issued and no selection process had commenced

Consequently, no legal right had accrued to the applicants

Applying the precedent in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, the Tribunal observed that the 2025 Rules, which shifted the recruitment method to 100% promotion, constituted a valid policy decision by the competent authority

The Tribunal found that the UPSC's decision to return the dossier to align with the new policy was not arbitrary

Since the applicants failed to demonstrate any mala fide intent or a vested right to a specific recruitment percentage, the Tribunal held that it could not interfere with the government's policy shift regarding the filling of older vacancies

The court affirmed that the government is entitled to apply new Recruitment Rules to pending vacancies where the recruitment process has not yet been initiated via advertisement

No order was made as to costs