Promotions are governed by rules in force at the time of consideration, not when vacancies arise.

The Appellants and Respondents are employees of the Andaman & Nicobar Police Department

Originally, promotion from Head Constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) was governed by the 1963 Police Manual and 1999 Standing Orders, emphasizing seniority-cum-fitness

In 2008 and 2010, the Administration introduced new Recruitment Rules requiring a matriculation (10th pass) qualification and a competitive selection test for 66-2/3% of the posts

Non-matriculate Head Constables (the Appellants) challenged these rules via O.A. No. 351/2014, arguing that the rules were unreasonable and lacked UPSC consultation

During litigation, the Administration issued the 2016 Rules, which abolished the selection test and restored the 100% seniority-cum-fitness model

The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. as infructuous, stating the 2016 Rules would govern future promotions

However, the High Court set this aside, directing that vacancies must be filled based on the rules prevailing when each vacancy accrued (the 2010 Rules)

The Appellants approached the Supreme Court

1. Whether promotions must be governed by the rules in force at the time the vacancy arises or by the rules in force at the time of consideration/selection.

2. Whether the ad hoc promotions granted under the 2010 Rules created a vested right in favor of the respondents that survives the 2016 amendment.

The Court primarily applied the principle established in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar (2022), which explicitly overruled Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao (1983), holding that there is no universal rule that vacancies must be filled based on the law existing on the date they arose; rather, the right to promotion is governed by the rules in force at the time of actual consideration

It further relied on Gottumukkala Venkata Krishamraju v. Union of India (2019) regarding the doctrine of "substitution," where replacing an old rule with a new one effectively deletes the former from the statute book unless intended otherwise

The Court also highlighted that ad hoc promotions subject to litigation do not confer vested rights as per State of Odisha v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash (2026)

The Court reasoned that the High Court erred by applying the overruled Rangaiah principle via Marripati Nagaraja, which wrongly tied promotion eligibility to the date of vacancy accrual

Applying Raj Kumar, the Court held that since the 2016 Rules were in force when the final selection was to be concluded, those rules—which favor seniority-cum-fitness—must govern all pending promotions

Regarding the Respondents' claims to "vested rights" under the 2010 Rules, the Court observed that their promotions in 2014 were "purely ad-hoc" and expressly subject to the outcome of the pending O.A.

Consequently, those promotions were not "completed acts" or "past and closed transactions" protected from the 2016 amendment

Because the 2016 Rules "substituted" the previous framework, the 2010 Rules ceased to exist, and the Administration was bound to follow the current statutory mandate

It held that the 2016 Rules, which restored the requirement of seniority-cum-fitness for 100% of the posts, are the only valid rules for considering promotions to the rank of ASI-Executive

The Court directed the Administration to fill all existing vacancies of ASI-Executive strictly under the 2016 Rules within two months

The ad hoc promotions granted under the old rules do not grant any seniority rights and are subject to the new recruitment process