Supreme Court of India· 17 September 2026
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?
THE BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED v. G.N. MANI RAVINDER AND OTHERS ETC
2026 INSC 1007
Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra · Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Answer
An officiating-basis promotee's claim to promotion does not survive a change of recruitment rules unless the promotion was provisional or ad hoc.
No. The private respondents here held the post of 'Rajbhasha Adhikari' only on an officiating basis, exactly as in Mishri Lal, where this Court held there was no vested right to promotion once the 2005 Rules changed the mode of recruitment. That is distinct from Medini C., which departed from Mishri Lal only because those petitioners had been promoted on a provisional or ad hoc basis before the new Rules took effect.
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 accountIn the Court's own words
Paragraph 8Indisputably, as has been noted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court that all the writ petitioners were officiating against the post of Assistant Director (Official Language) or ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’ which fact was also stated in paragraphs 6 and 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the appellants before the writ court. Thus, it is not in dispute that the private respondents-writ petitioners were never promoted either on regular basis or even on ad hoc basis to the post of ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’. In the above undisputed factual background, we notice the observations made by this Court in Mishri Lal (supra) in paragraph 10 which is reproduced hereunder:
Paragraph 9In the subsequent decision of this Court in Medini C. (supra), the affected candidates were promoted on officiating or ad hoc basis. In such a situation, this Court had an occasion to consider whether their cases would be governed by the earlier decision of this Court in Mishri Lal (supra) or they are distinguishable. This Court proceeded to observe thus in paragraphs 20, 21, 30 and 32 to 37:
Paragraph 10The conspicuous discerning factors in Mishri Lal (supra) and Medini C. (supra) are that in Mishri Lal (supra) the writ petitioners were working as ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’ on officiating basis like in the present case; whereas in the matter of Medini C. (supra), the writ petitioners were provisionally promoted7. Thus, the cases of the private respondents-writ petitioners were covered under the judgment rendered by this Court in Mishri Lal (supra) wherein this Court denied the relief to the writ petitioners only on the ground that since they were working 7 See paragraphs 36 and 37 of Medini C. (supra) on the next higher post only on officiating basis, there is no vested right in them to be considered for promotion under the old Rules. In the subsequent decision in the matter of Medini C. (supra), the writ petitioners were provisionally promoted and, thus, this Court distinguished the earlier decision of this Court in the matter of Mishri Lal (supra).
Acts & Sections
Article 14 of the Constitution of IndiaOne 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 accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →