Rules in Force at Time of Consideration Govern Promotions, Not Rules When Vacancy Arose: Supreme Court

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order directing old recruitment rules to govern accrued vacancies, holding the 2016 Rules must apply to all ASI-Executive promotions in the Andaman & Nicobar Police.

The Supreme Court has allowed a civil appeal filed by Head Constables of the Andaman & Nicobar Police Department, setting aside a 2016 judgment of the High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, which had directed that vacancies accrued under old recruitment rules must be filled by those old rules. A Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti held that the Andaman and Nicobar Police Department Group ‘C’ Posts Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2016 govern all pending and future promotions to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive), and directed the Administration to fill existing vacancies within two months. The judgment resolves a dispute that had travelled from a Central Administrative Tribunal bench at Port Blair through the High Court and finally to the Supreme Court, generating multiple rounds of litigation over a single promotional cadre.

How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court

The appellants and respondents were all Constables in the Andaman & Nicobar Police Department who had been promoted to Head Constables. Their service conditions were governed by the Andaman & Nicobar Police Manual, 1963. The entry-level qualification for Constables was the 8th Standard.

On 31 March 2008, the Administration notified the Andaman & Nicobar Administration (Police Department) Group ‘C’ Posts Recruitment Rules, 2008. These rules introduced a minimum educational qualification of matriculation (10th standard pass) for promotion to the post of ASI-Executive, and split the promotional quota into a 66⅔% selection track and a 33⅓% seniority-cum-fitness track. A Standing Order dated 4 October 2008 set out a 200-mark examination for the selection quota. The 2008 Rules were amended by the 2010 Rules, which retained the same structure but clarified that recruitment was 100% by promotion from Head Constables.

The appellants, who did not hold matriculation qualifications, filed Original Application No. 351/2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Circuit Bench at Port Blair. They challenged the 2008 Rules and a June 2014 Circular inviting applications for the selection test, arguing that the matriculation requirement was introduced without consulting the UPSC or the Department of Personnel and Training, and that the Delhi Police Manual—whose service benefits the Administration extended to its personnel—provided for 100% seniority-cum-fitness promotion without any examination.

The Tribunal allowed the application on 23 April 2015, quashed the 2014 Circular, and directed promotions on a seniority-cum-fitness basis until proper rules were framed. The High Court set that order aside on 26 November 2015 and remanded the matter. During the remand, the Administration notified the 2016 Rules on 21 March 2016, which abolished the selection test and the matriculation requirement entirely, restoring 100% seniority-cum-fitness promotion. The Tribunal then dismissed the original application as infructuous on 19 April 2016, since the 2016 Rules had substantially granted what the appellants sought.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 28—Head Constables who had been promoted on an ad hoc basis in November 2014 under the 2008 Rules—challenged the Tribunal’s April 2016 order before the High Court. The High Court allowed their petition on 10 August 2016, holding that vacancies which had accrued before the 2016 Rules must be filled under the rules prevailing when those vacancies arose, relying on Marripati Nagaraja and Others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 522. The appellants then filed Civil Appeal No. 9041 of 2019 before the Supreme Court.

The Ad Hoc Promotions and Their Legal Character

A significant factual strand concerned the 44 Head Constables promoted on an ad hoc basis pursuant to a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 12 November 2014. The promotion order dated 13 November 2014 stated that the promotions were “purely ad-hoc” and that the promotees “will not have any claim or right to seniority in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector.” The order also expressly made the promotions subject to the outcome of O.A. No. 351/2014.

These ad hoc promotees were reverted to Head Constable by an order dated 16 August 2016. After the Administration issued a fresh circular on 24 August 2016 calling for applications under the 2016 Rules, the reverted officers participated in the new selection process. Some were selected in 2017; others were not. This created a further layer of competing claims within the same cadre.

The Court examined the promotion order carefully. Because the ad hoc promotions were explicitly made subject to the outcome of the litigation and carried no right to seniority, the Court held they could not be treated as a “completed act” conferring vested rights. The argument that the 2016 Rules operated only prospectively and could not disturb the 2014 promotions therefore did not hold.

The Legal Question: Which Rules Govern Accrued Vacancies?

The central legal contest was between two competing principles. The appellants relied on the three-Judge Bench decision in State of Himachal Pradesh & Others v. Raj Kumar & Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 680, which had expressly overruled the earlier principle in Y.V. Rangaiah and Others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others, (1983) 3 SCC 284. The respondents argued that the 2016 Rules operated prospectively, that the 2014 DPC process was a “past and closed” transaction, and that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 protected rights accrued under the repealed 2010 Rules.

The High Court had applied Marripati Nagaraja to hold that vacancies must be filled under the rules prevailing when they arose. The Supreme Court found this approach incorrect in light of Raj Kumar.

In Raj Kumar, the three-Judge Bench had reviewed fifteen decisions that had distinguished Rangaiah and concluded that there is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be filled on the basis of the law existing when they arose. The Court in Raj Kumar held that public servants do not possess a vested right to be considered under old rules, and that the right to be considered for promotion is governed exclusively by the rules in force at the time the promotion is actually considered.

The Supreme Court also referred to a Division Bench decision in State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash, 2026 INSC 505, which had applied Raj Kumar and summarised the position: the government has the prerogative not to fill vacancies during a change in cadre structure; there is no universal rule tying vacancies to the rules in force when they arose; and an employee’s right is only to be considered under the rules in force on the date of actual consideration. The Court in Sreepati Ranjan also drew a distinction between an automatic promotional post and a selection post, holding that for a selection post the government is competent to change the selection method.

Effect of “Substitution” in the 2016 Rules

The respondents contended that even if the 2016 Rules applied, they operated prospectively as an amendment and could not disturb the 2014 selection. The Court addressed this by examining the legal meaning of “substitution” in amending legislation.

Relying on Gottumukkala Venkata Krishamraju v. Union of India & Others, (2019) 17 SCC 590, and Zile Singh v. State of Haryana & Others, (2004) 8 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that substitution ordinarily consists of two steps: the old rule ceases to exist, and the new rule comes into existence in its place. The old rule is to be treated as if scored out and the new rule written in its place.

Applying this to the facts, the Court held that since the 2014 consideration was the subject of ongoing litigation and further steps were to be governed by the outcome of O.A. No. 351/2014, the consideration for promotion effectively took place only under the 2016 Rules. The appellants could not claim consideration for vacancies between 2010 and 2014 separately. The Court directed that all eligible candidates—including both the appellants and Respondent Nos. 1 to 28—must be considered strictly under the 2016 Rules.

The Court’s Conclusions

The Court set out its conclusions in summary form. The High Court’s reliance on Marripati Nagaraja was held to be incorrect and the impugned judgment was set aside. The 2016 Rules restored the position that existed before 31 March 2008, providing for 100% seniority-cum-fitness promotion to ASI-Executive without any examination or matriculation requirement. Promotions made pursuant to the Administration’s 2016 circular and the subsequent 2017 selection process were not the subject matter of O.A. No. 351/2014 and were left undisturbed.

The Court also observed that the Administration had, by issuing the 2016 Rules, substantially accepted the appellants’ original prayer. The Tribunal had therefore been correct in disposing of O.A. No. 351/2014 as infructuous. The High Court’s intervention to revive the old rules for accrued vacancies was unsustainable.

Order

Civil Appeal No. 9041 of 2019 was allowed. The judgment of the High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, dated 10 August 2016 in WPCT No. 127 of 2016, was set aside. The Court directed the Administration to fill existing vacancies of ASI-Executive under the 2016 Rules within two months from 27 May 2026. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.