Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. G.N. Mani Ravinder
Supreme Court of India, 17 September 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 1007
Hindi translators who only officiated as Rajbhasha Adhikari had no vested right to promotion under the pre-2005 rules; applying Raj Kumar, the Court set aside the High Court's direction to consider them without the 2005 Rules test.
Facts
The private respondents were appointed as Hindi Translators in the Department of Telecommunications. A 1994 administrative order provided for automatic promotion of Hindi Translators to Hindi Officer after set years of service, but they were not promoted under it. The Assistant Director (Official Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002 were framed but never brought into operation. The Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005 renamed the post and prescribed a written test for promotion. The respondents, who worked as Rajbhasha Adhikari only on an officiating basis, challenged the 2005 Rules. A Single Judge of the High Court directed that they be considered for promotion without the test, on the basis of rights under the earlier rules, and the Division Bench affirmed. BSNL appealed.
Questions before the Court
- Was the case of the private respondents governed by Mishri Lal or by Medini C.?
- Were the private respondents entitled to be considered for promotion under the rules existing before the 2005 Rules?
What the Court held
- It was undisputed that the private respondents only officiated as Rajbhasha Adhikari and were never promoted, either regularly or on an ad hoc basis.
- Their case was covered by Mishri Lal, where officiating appointees were held to have no vested right to promotion under the old rules. Medini C. was different because the employees there had been provisionally promoted, which is why it distinguished Mishri Lal.
- Under Raj Kumar, a candidate has a right to be considered under the rules existing on the date of consideration; there is no universal rule that vacancies must be filled under the law existing when they arose, and the Government may fairly decide not to fill earlier vacancies under the old rules.
- Applying Raj Kumar, the High Court could not direct consideration of the respondents for promotion under the pre-2005 rules. The High Court's judgments were set aside and the appeals were allowed.
Why it matters
The judgment separates employees who merely officiated in a post from those provisionally promoted, applying Mishri Lal to the first group and confining Medini C. to the second. It applies Raj Kumar to reject a claim that pre-amendment vacancies must be filled under the old recruitment rules.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Indisputably, 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’.”
“The 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 promoted”
“Thus, 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.”
Provisions interpreted
- Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005
- Assistant Director (Official Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002
Case and bench
- Parties
- The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. G.N. Mani Ravinder and Others etc.
- Case
- Civil Appeal Nos. 12966-12967 of 2026 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 24406-24407 of 2023)
- Decided
- 17 September 2026
- Bench
- Prashant Kumar Mishra, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by Prashant Kumar Mishra, J., for a Bench of two Judges. No separate opinion.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.