Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the High Court of Manipur. The respondents, Havildars in Assam Rifles appointed between 1982 and 1989, had sought promotion to Naib Subedar under pre-2011 rules. Following the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations, the government introduced an intermediate rank of Warrant Officer in 2011, and the Assam Rifles Warrant Officer (General Duty) Group 'C' Combatised Posts Recruitment Rules, 2012 were notified. Under these rules, Havildars were promoted to Warrant Officer, not Naib Subedar. The respondents were promoted as Warrant Officers but challenged this, claiming they should have been considered for Naib Subedar against vacancies that arose before the restructuring. The High Court directed the appellants to consider the respondents for promotion to Naib Subedar against pre-2011 vacancies, holding that vacancies occurring prior to amendment are governed by old rules. The Supreme Court reversed this, relying on precedents such as Y.V. Rangaiah, H.S. Grewal, Deepak Agarwal, and State of Tripura v. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty. The Court held that there is no vested right to promotion, only a right to be considered under the rules in force at the time of consideration. The creation of an intermediate post does not interfere with any vested rights. The High Court's assumption that pre-amendment vacancies must be filled under old rules was erroneous. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Vested Right - Right to be considered for promotion accrues on date of consideration under rules then in force - No vested right to promotion - Creation of intermediate post of Warrant Officer does not interfere with any vested right - Held that promotion must be considered under rules existing at time of consideration, not when vacancy arose (Paras 6-10). B) Service Law - Recruitment Rules - Applicability - Vacancies occurring prior to amendment not necessarily governed by old rules - No rule of universal application that vacancies must be filled under law existing when they arose - Unless applicable rule prescribes specific time frame for selection process - Held that High Court erred in directing consideration under pre-2011 rules (Paras 6-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Havildars in Assam Rifles have a vested right to be considered for promotion to Naib Subedar under pre-2011 rules despite restructuring creating an intermediate post of Warrant Officer, and whether vacancies occurring prior to amendment must be filled under old rules.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- No vested right to promotion
- only right to be considered under existing rules
- Vacancies not necessarily governed by rules at time of occurrence
- Creation of intermediate post does not interfere with vested rights
