Allowing BSNL’s appeal, the Supreme Court has held that Hindi Translators working only on officiating basis cannot claim promotion under the pre-Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005, emphasising that vacancies need not be filled under the law prevailing on the date they arose. The Court said that employees appointed purely on local officiating basis under administrative instructions are not regular appointees and acquire no vested right to promotion under subsequent statutory recruitment rules, even if those rules were never brought into operation.
The Court held that the present case is squarely covered by BSNL v. Mishri Lal [(2011) 14 SCC 739], where officiating-basis Hindi Translators were denied promotion relief. Essentially, the Court said that there is no universal rule that vacancies must be filled under the law in force on the date they arose. A candidate’s right to be considered crystallises on the date of consideration under the rules then existing, and the Government may consciously decide not to fill vacancies arising before a rule change.
The Apex Court emphasised that the Government is entitled to restructure recruitment modes, including shifting from promotion-based to limited internal competitive examination-based selection, provided the policy is fair, reasonable, and withstands Article 14 scrutiny.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the private respondents-writ petitioners were never promoted either on a regular basis or even on an ad hoc basis to the post of ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’ and were working purely on a local officiating basis under the administrative instructions dated April 28, 1994. This factual position was found to be identical to the one considered by the Supreme Court in CMD/Chairman, BSNL v. Mishri Lal [(2011) 14 SCC 739], where it was held that persons appointed purely on local officiating basis were never regular appointees and hence had no vested rights for promotion under the 2002 Rules, which were never in operation.
Also read Delhi HC Asks Shaving Company to Take Down Impugned Advertisement in Gillette Disparagement Suit
Briefly, the private respondents-writ petitioners were Hindi Translators in different grades working with the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and later Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). They were officiating against the post of Assistant Director (Official Language), later renamed as ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’, but were never promoted on a regular or even ad hoc basis. An administrative order dated April 28, 1994, had provided for automatic promotion of Hindi Translators to the post of Hindi Officer on completion of 3, 5 and 8 years of service, but the writ petitioners were not extended this benefit.
The DoT then framed the Assistant Director (Official Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002, which were never brought into operation. Subsequently, the Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005 were enacted, renaming the post and prescribing a written test for promotion. The writ petitioners challenged the 2005 Rules before the High Court, seeking promotion under the earlier rules. The Single Judge allowed the petitions, directing consideration of their cases for promotion without reference to the test prescribed under the 2005 Rules and on the basis of rights accrued under the earlier rules.
