Hindi translators cannot claim promotion under the rules that existed when the vacancies arose
Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside High Court orders directing BSNL to consider officiating Rajbhasha Adhikaris under the pre-2005 promotion rules.
The question was which of two of its own decisions the Supreme Court should apply, and the answer decided the promotions of a group of officers who have been officiating in the post for years. Employees working as Assistant Director (Official Language), a post renamed Rajbhasha Adhikari, had persuaded the High Court that they should be considered for promotion without reference to the test prescribed by the 2005 Recruitment Rules, on the strength of rights accrued under the rules that came before. On 17 September 2026 the Supreme Court set those orders aside.
A separate wing, and a ladder of posts
The Department of Telecommunications constituted a separate wing for the promotion of the Hindi language, and created posts of Hindi Translator in Grades I, II and III, with the post of Hindi Officer above them. The respondents were appointed as Hindi Translators in various grades. Administrative orders issued from time to time laid down guidelines for promotion to the next higher post.
The Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005 introduced a test. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the employer to consider the writ petitioners for promotion to the post of Rajbhasha Adhikari without reference to that test, and on the basis of the rights that had accrued to them under the earlier rules. A Division Bench affirmed that order.
Two precedents, and the fact that separated them
The appeal turned on whether the case was governed by Medini C. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, decided by three judges, or by the earlier decision in CMD/Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Mishri Lal.
The distinguishing feature, as the Court read it, is that in Medini C. the writ petitioners had been provisionally promoted, and it was on that footing that the Court there distinguished Mishri Lal. The respondents in the present case were officiating, which is not the same thing.
What Raj Kumar settled
The decisive authority was Raj Kumar, which overturned the long-standing position in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao. The Court set out three propositions from it. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of the law that existed on the date they arose. A candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, and that right arises on the date of consideration of eligible candidates, under the rules in force at that point in time. And the Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill vacancies that arose before the rules were amended.
On that reading an employee acquires no vested right to be considered for promotion under repealed rules, and there is no obligation on the Government to make appointments under the old rules when it restructures. The requirement is a different one: the policy decision must be fair and reasonable, and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14.
Order
Applying Raj Kumar, the Court held that the High Court could not have directed consideration of the respondents' case for promotion on the basis of the rules existing immediately prior to the 2005 Rules. The common impugned judgments of the High Court were set aside, the appeals allowed, and pending applications disposed of.