Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005 – Assistant Director (Official Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002 – Promotion to the post of ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’ – Private respondents, working on the post of Assistant Director (Official Language), renamed as ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’, on officiating basis, sought promotion to the post of ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’ under the Rules that existed prior to 2005 Rules, relying on Medini C’s case – Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions directing the appellants to consider the cases of the private respondents for promotion to the post of ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’ without reference to the test prescribed under the 2005 Rules and on the basis of the rights that accrued to the private respondents under the Rules that existed earlier thereto – Said order upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court – Correctness: Held: No rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose – Candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing rules and that such right occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates under the rules existing at that point in time – Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules – Employee does not acquire any vested right for being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government – No obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuring – Only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Art.14 of the Constitution of India – Applying the ratio laid down by this Court in Raj Kumar’s case, 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 set aside. [Paras 11, 12]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain (1983) 3 SCC 284. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.