Supreme Court: No vested promotion rights under unenforced 2002 Rules

The Supreme Court determined which of its prior judgments (Mishri Lal or Medini C.) governs the specific facts of these respondents.

Who it concerns: Appellants: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and another; Respondents: G.N. Mani Ravinder and others (writ petitioners); Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

What the court decided

• The Court granted leave to appeal.
• The Court analyzed the distinction between the respondents' case and the precedent set in Mishri Lal (2011).
• The Court noted that the respondents were never regularly promoted or appointed on an ad hoc basis, but were working on an officiating basis.
• The Court cited Mishri Lal to state that persons working on an officiating basis do not have vested rights for promotion under the 2002 Rules, which were never in operation.
• The Court observed that the 2005 Rules changed the mode of recruitment to a limited internal competitive examination for executive posts.
• The Court concluded that the change in policy to fill posts via competitive examination rather than promotion of officiating staff was not illegal.

Also in the document

• The Court distinguished the current case from Medini C. (2022), noting that in Medini C., candidates had been promoted on an officiating or ad hoc basis prior to the 2002 Rules, whereas in the current case, the respondents were never regularly promoted.
• The Court affirmed that the 2002 Rules were never brought into operation, meaning no vested rights accrued under them for the respondents.
• The Court held that the 2005 Rules, which mandated a competitive examination, validly superseded the earlier administrative instructions for local officiating.