Officiating service confers no vested right to promotion under superseded recruitment rules.

The respondents were Hindi Translators working against the post of Assistant Director (Official Language), subsequently renamed Rajbhasha Adhikari, on an officiating basis.

Earlier administrative instructions dated 28 April 1994 contemplated automatic promotion of Hindi Translators to the post of Hindi Officer upon completion of prescribed service periods.

The 2002 Recruitment Rules re-designated the post as Assistant Director (Official Language) and provided for filling existing vacancies through promotion, but those Rules were never implemented.

The 2005 Recruitment Rules renamed the post Rajbhasha Adhikari and prescribed a written limited internal competitive examination for promotion.

The respondents challenged the application of the 2005 Rules and sought consideration for promotion under the earlier regime.

The Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court granted relief by directing consideration under the pre-2005 Rules.

BSNL appealed.

Whether employees officiating against the post of Assistant Director (Official Language)/Rajbhasha Adhikari, without regular or ad hoc promotion, acquired a vested right to be considered for promotion under the pre-2005 Rules.

Whether the respondents’ case was governed by Medini C. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited or by CMD/Chairman, BSNL v. Mishri Lal.

Whether the High Court could direct consideration of the respondents’ promotion under the Rules prevailing before the 2005 Recruitment Rules, merely because the relevant vacancies had arisen earlier.

The Court applied the distinction drawn in CMD/Chairman, BSNL v. Mishri Lal, (2011) 14 SCC 739, that employees working only on local officiating arrangements do not acquire a vested right to promotion under earlier Rules, particularly where those Rules were never implemented; by contrast, Medini C. v. BSNL, (2022) 4 SCC 562, concerned employees who had been provisionally promoted and whose regularisation was specifically contemplated as a one-time measure under Rule 10(3) of the 2002 Rules.

The Court further applied State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, (2023) 3 SCC 773, which overruled the universal application of the principle in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284: vacancies need not invariably be filled under the Rules existing when they arose; an employee has a right to consideration under the Rules in force when consideration takes place; and the Government may, through a fair and reasonable policy decision, decline to fill earlier vacancies under repealed Rules.

The Court found that the respondents had never been regularly or even ad hoc promoted; they were merely officiating against the higher post.

This factual position brought their case squarely within Mishri Lal, where such officiating service was held insufficient to create a vested right under the 2002 Rules.

The Court distinguished Medini C. because the employees there had been provisionally promoted and were covered by the specific one-time regularisation mechanism in Rule 10(3) of the 2002 Rules.

Independently, under Raj Kumar, the mere prior existence of vacancies did not entitle the respondents to consideration under the superseded Rules.

The 2005 Rules validly altered the promotional method by requiring a limited internal competitive examination, and the High Court therefore erred in directing consideration under the earlier Rules.

Their cases were governed by Mishri Lal, not Medini C., and the High Court could not require consideration under the earlier Rules merely because the vacancies had arisen before the 2005 Rules.

The common judgments of the High Court were set aside, the appeals were allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.