Vacancies must be filled per rules in force during consideration; no vested right to old rules.

The respondents were appointed as Junior Assistants in 2013 and promoted to Senior Assistants in 2016.

Historically, promotion to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (ARTO) was governed by Executive Instructions dated 17.11.1981, pending finalization of recruitment rules.

In 2017, the cadre was restructured, and the ARTO post was upgraded to Group B.

In 2019, the ministerial cadre was further restructured, redesignating Senior Assistants as Assistant Section Officers (ASO) with a separate internal promotional hierarchy.

The respondents sought promotion to ARTO under the 1981 Instructions.

While their representations were pending/rejected, the State notified the Odisha Transport Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 on 05.01.2022, which mandated recruitment to ARTO posts via competitive examination.

A Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Odisha High Court directed the State to convene a DPC under the old 1981 Instructions, holding that vacancies arose prior to the 2021 Rules.

1. Whether an employee has a vested right to be considered for promotion based on rules/instructions that existed at the time the vacancy arose, despite subsequent amendment or notification of new recruitment rules.

2. Whether the "supersession" clause in the 2021 Rules saved the pending recommendation for a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) as a "thing done" under the previous executive instructions.

The Court primarily applied the principle that an employee has no vested right to promotion or to be governed by repealed rules, but only a right to be considered under the "rules in force" at the time of actual consideration.

It relied on State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar (2023) 3 SCC 773, which expressly overruled Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and established that there is no universal rule that vacancies must be filled per the law existing when they arose.

The Court also applied Union of India v. Somasundaram Viswanath (1989) 1 SCC 175, affirming that statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 supersede executive instructions.

The Court found that the High Court erred by failing to apply the ratio of Raj Kumar, which mandates that the "rule in force" at the time of consideration governs promotions.

The 1981 Executive Instructions were explicitly a pro-tem arrangement "pending finalization of cadre rules".

Once the 2021 Rules were notified under Article 309, they became the sole authority for recruitment.

Regarding the "savings" clause in the 2021 Rules, the Court reasoned that a mere recommendation by the Transport Commissioner to hold a DPC did not constitute a "thing done or omitted to be done"; only a completed appointment would have been saved.

Furthermore, the ARTO post was a "selection post," meaning the State had the policy discretion to change the recruitment method from promotion to competitive examination based on administrative necessity.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders, ruling that the State cannot be compelled to fill vacancies under repealed/superseded instructions when a conscious policy decision (2021 Rules) has been made to restructure the cadre and recruitment process. The appeals were allowed.