In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. G.N. Mani Ravinder and Others, the Supreme Court considered whether employees appointed as Hindi Translators and working in a local officiating capacity as Assistant Director (Official Language) / “Rajbhasha Adhikari” had a vested right to be considered for promotion under earlier administrative instructions or the un-enforced 2002 Recruitment Rules, instead of being required to qualify through the limited internal competitive examination prescribed under the 2005 Recruitment Rules. The respondents had been appointed as Hindi Translators in the Department of Telecommunications. Administrative instructions dated 28 April 1994 contemplated automatic promotion to Hindi Officer upon completion of the prescribed period of service. Subsequently, Recruitment Rules framed in 2002 redesignated the post as Assistant Director (Official Language) and provided for filling 120 vacancies through promotion, but those Rules were never brought into operation. The 2005 Rules thereafter renamed the post “Rajbhasha Adhikari” and introduced a written limited internal competitive examination as a requirement for promotion. The respondents, who were functioning only on a local officiating basis, challenged the 2005 Rules and succeeded before the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court. BSNL consequently approached the Supreme Court.

ISSUES OF LAW:

The primary issue was whether employees working as Hindi Translators and officiating as Assistant Director (Official Language) / ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’ possess a vested right to be considered for promotion under earlier administrative instructions or the un-enforced 2002 Recruitment Rules, rather than appearing for the limited internal competitive examination mandated under the Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005. Relatedly, the Court considered whether the case was governed by the precedent in Mishri Lal (which denied promotion rights to local officiating employees) or Medini C. (which granted relief to provisionally promoted employees under a specific one-time measure), and whether old vacancies must be filled under old rules in light of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

The private respondents were appointed as Hindi Translators in the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). Administrative instructions issued on 28.04.1994 provided for automatic promotion to the post of Hindi Officer upon completing specified years of service. Statutory rules framed in 2002 re-designated the post as Assistant Director (Official Language) and provided for filling 120 vacancies via promotion, but these rules were never brought into operation. In 2005, new statutory rules were enacted renaming the post to ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’ and requiring candidates to clear a written limited internal competitive examination for promotion.

The private respondents, who were working on a purely local officiating basis, challenged the 2005 Rules. The learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court ruled in favour of the employees, holding that they were entitled to be considered for promotion under the rules/instructions prevalent before the 2005 Rules. BSNL appealed this determination to the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court judgments. The Court distinguished Medini C. by observing that the employees in Medini C. had been provisionally promoted before 2002 and fell under a specific “one-time measure” clause under Rule 10(3) of the 2002 Rules. Conversely, the private respondents in the present case were working purely on a local officiating basis without regular or provisional appointments, making their case identical to Mishri Lal, where no vested right to promotion under repealed or unenforced rules was recognized.

Furthermore, applying the principle established in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar (which overruled Y.V. Rangaiah), the Court reiterated that candidates have no universal right to be considered under rules in force when a vacancy arose; rather, an employee’s right is to be considered under the rules existing at the actual time of consideration. Consequently, the private respondents were required to qualify under the 2005 Rules via the prescribed examination.

LINK TO ACCESS THE JUDGMENT HERE

CASE NAME:

The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. G.N. Mani Ravinder and Others Etc.

COURT NAME:

Supreme Court of India

JUDGES NAME:

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. and Ujjal Bhuyan, J. (Judgment authored by Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.)

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

September 17, 2026

CITATION | NEUTRAL CITATION:

2026 INSC 1007 | Civil Appeal No(s). 12966-12967 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No(s). 24406-24407 of 2023)