Supreme Court of India· 17 September 2026

Does a candidate's right to be considered for promotion run from the rules existing on the date of consideration, or from the date the vacancy arose?

THE BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED v. G.N. MANI RAVINDER AND OTHERS ETC

2026 INSC 1007
Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra · Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Article 14 of the Constitution o…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

A candidate's right to be considered for promotion runs from the rules existing on the date of consideration, not the date a vacancy arose.

A candidate's right to be considered for promotion runs from the rules existing on the date of consideration, not the date a vacancy arose. Overturning the earlier Y.V. Rangaiah rule, this Court in Raj Kumar held there is no vested right in a candidate to be considered under repealed rules, and the Government may change recruitment rules prospectively provided the change is fair and reasonable under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Applying Raj Kumar, the High Court could not direct consideration of the private respondents' case under the pre-2005 Rules.

Headnote

Constitution of India — Art.14 — Recruitment Rules — Promotion — Officiating Basis — Vested Right — Recruitment Rules — Officiating Promotion — Mishri Lal vs. Medini C. — Held: An officiating-basis promotee acquires no vested right to promotion once intervening recruitment rules change the mode of selection. That is unlike a promotee given a provisional or ad hoc promotion, whose case is distinguishable. (¶8, 9, 10) Constitution of India — Art.14 — Recruitment Rules — Vested Right on Consideration Date — Held further: A candidate's right to be considered for promotion follows the rules in force on the date of consideration, not the date the vacancy arose, provided a rule change is fair and reasonable under Article 14. Applying this, the High Court's direction was set aside and the appeals allowed. (¶11, 12, 13)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 11It is now settled by this Court in the matter of Raj Kumar (supra) while overturning the earlier decision in the matter of Y.V. Rangaiah and Others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others[^8], that:

Paragraph 12Thus, applying the ratio laid down by this Court in Raj Kumar (supra), the High Court could not have directed consideration of the private respondents-writ petitioners’ case for promotion on the basis of the Rules existing immediately prior to the enactment of the 2005 Rules. Thus, the common impugned judgments passed by the High Court deserve to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.

Acts & Sections

Article 14 of the Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of THE BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED v. G.N. MANI RAVINDER AND OTHERS ETC — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Does an officiating-basis promotee's claim to promotion survive a change of recruitment rules where the promotion itself was not provisional or ad hoc?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections