BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants before the Tribunal were all appointed as Hindi Translators Grade I and were subsequently promoted as Senior Hindi Translators. They were also promoted as Additional Director (Official Languages), but on an ad hoc basis, especially since there was no recruitment rules available for such promotion to the post of AD(OL). In the year 2002, Assistant Director (Official Languages)Recruitment Rules, 2002 was brought out, specifically on 24.12.2002. Therein there was a quota provided for the promotees and direct recruits. However, there was a special provision which read as under:

(2.) The applicants were legitimately expecting a regular promotion on the basis of the recruitment rules of 2002. However, no action was taken for three years and a fresh recruitment rule was promulgated called the Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005. The special provision available in 2002 Rules was omitted. The new rules hence provided for a mode of recruitment which the applicants who are continuing as AD(OL) on adhoc promotions will have to subject themselves to. They were aggrieved with the fact that though the recruitment rules of 2002 were in place, nothing was done by the petitioner-BSNL to promote them to the post of AD(OL). The Tribunal found that the recruitment rules having been implemented in the year 2002, the applicants were entitled to be considered under the Rules of 2002 and not under the Rules of 2005.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the BSNL has placed before us a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 14 SCC 739 [BSNL and others v. Mishri Lal and others]. The applicability of the Rules of 2002 and 2005 was specifically considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was found that the Rules of 2002 was never implemented. In fact, the Rules of 2005 was brought in with retrospective effect on a policy change as decided by the BSNL. It was held that there was no vested right on similarly situated persons to claim regular promotion to the post of AD(OL) on the basis of the Rules of 2002. Here the situational facts are identical with respect to all the applicants who are similar to the applicants in the Supreme Court decision. The applicants herein, as in the cited decision, were never regularly promoted to the post of AD(OL) and were only placed there on adhoc basis.