The Supreme Court has held that government employees do not possess a vested right to seek promotion under recruitment rules that existed when vacancies arose.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti ruled that promotions must be governed by the statutory rules prevailing at the time the consideration for promotion actually takes place.
The dispute originated from changes introduced in the Andaman & Nicobar Police Department recruitment structure. Initially, promotions from Head Constable to ASI were largely based on seniority and completion of prescribed police training. However, the 2008 Recruitment Rules brought substantial changes by creating two promotional channels — a 66⅔% selection quota and a 33⅓% seniority-cum-fitness quota. The revised framework also introduced a matriculation requirement and a competitive assessment process for the selection stream.
This change created divisions among police personnel. Several Head Constables who had entered service with lower educational qualifications challenged the modified system. They argued that they had joined service under different expectations and that introducing matriculation requirements at a later stage effectively blocked their promotional opportunities. They also claimed that Delhi Police practices, which influenced their service conditions, followed a seniority-cum-fitness model without such educational barriers.
The controversy eventually reached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), where the petitioners sought amendment of the recruitment rules and cancellation of the selection process initiated through a 2014 circular. The Tribunal initially sided with them and directed the administration to proceed with promotions on a seniority-cum-fitness basis.
However, during the pendency of proceedings, the administration issued fresh Recruitment Rules in 2016 that completely abolished the selection-based system. The new rules restored a 100% seniority-cum-fitness promotional model and eliminated the matriculation requirement and selection examination.
The major legal question before the Supreme Court was whether vacancies that arose before the 2016 amendment should continue to be governed by the old 2010 Rules, as directed by the High Court, or whether the 2016 Rules would govern promotional consideration.
The High Court had earlier relied on previous judicial precedent and held that vacancies should be filled according to the rules existing when the vacancies accrued.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
The Court examined its earlier three-judge bench judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar and reiterated that the principle laid down in Y.V. Rangaiah, which treated vacancies as governed by the rules existing on the date of their occurrence, no longer represented the correct legal position. The Court observed that there is no universal principle requiring vacancies to be filled under old rules merely because they arose during the operation of those rules. Employees only possess a right to be considered for promotion under the rules in force at the time actual consideration takes place.
The Bench also rejected arguments advanced by certain ad hoc promotees who sought protection of their promotions made under the earlier regime. The Court noted that the promotions granted in 2014 were purely ad hoc and expressly subject to the outcome of ongoing litigation. Since those promotions were temporary and carried no claim to seniority or permanent rights, they could not be treated as completed transactions creating vested rights.
The Court further discussed the legal effect of amendments made by “substitution.” Referring to earlier precedents, it noted that substitution ordinarily removes the earlier provision and replaces it with a new one unless legislative intent suggests otherwise. Accordingly, the 2016 Rules effectively displaced the earlier framework for future promotional consideration.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and held that the existing vacancies for ASI-Executive posts must be filled under the 2016 Recruitment Rules. The Court clarified that promotions already carried out under the 2016 framework were not under challenge in the present proceedings and directed that remaining vacancies be filled within two months.
Case Details
Case Title: Jagdish Prasad And Others Versus P.M. Manoj Kumar And Others
Citation: JURISHOUR-1431-SC-2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 9041 Of 2019
Date: 27/05/2026
