State of Odisha v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash
(2026) INSC 505
Key Issue / Question of Law
Whether employees who were eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer under Executive Instructions dated 17.11.1981 have a vested right to be considered for promotion under those instructions after the enactment of the Odisha Transport Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 which superseded all previous instructions and provided for direct recruitment through competitive examination, and whether the State can be compelled to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee to fill vacancies under the old instructions.
Ratio Decidendi
The decision in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284 that vacancies must be filled on the basis of rules existing on the date when they arose is impliedly overruled by the fifteen decisions that distinguished it and is now expressly overruled by Raj Kumar v. State of H.P. (2023) 3 SCC 773. An employee does not have a vested right to promotion nor a legitimate expectation to be promoted; the limited right is for consideration of candidature under the rules in force on the date consideration takes place. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up vacancies under the old rules, especially when there is a change in cadre and restructuring of posts. Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution prevail over executive instructions issued under Article 162. If there is a conflict between executive instructions and rules made under the proviso to Article 309, the rules prevail.
Holding / Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court dated 7 November 2025, and vacated the interim orders. The Court held that the High Court erred in directing the Transport Commissioner to convene a DPC for promotion to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer under the Executive Instructions of 1981 after the 2021 Rules had come into force superseding all previous instructions. The post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer was a selection post, and the Government was entitled to fill it through direct recruitment by competitive examination under the 2021 Rules. The respondents had no vested right to be considered for promotion under the old instructions.
Background & Facts
Sreepati Ranjan Dash and Aditya Bhanjan Sahoo were appointed as Junior Assistants on 18 March 2013 and promoted as Senior Assistants on 13 June 2016. In April 2017, all border check gates were abolished, requiring adjustment of posts. On 17 October 2017, a Resolution restructured the Odisha Transport Service, making the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (ARTO) a Group B post. On 24 January 2019, the Odisha Ministerial Services were restructured, and Dash and Sahoo were re-designated as Assistant Section Officers. They claimed eligibility for promotion to ARTO under Executive Instructions dated 17 November 1981. The State rejected their claims. After litigation, the Single Judge of the Orissa High Court allowed their writ petitions on 24 February 2023 and 28 February 2023, directing the Transport Commissioner to convene a DPC. The Division Bench dismissed the State's intra-court appeals on 7 November 2025. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the Odisha Transport Service Rules, 2021 were notified on 5 January 2022, providing for direct recruitment to ARTO through competitive examination by the OPSC.
Statutes Involved
- Article 309, Constitution of India — Proviso empowers the Governor of a State to make rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State until provision is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature
- Article 162, Constitution of India — Extent of executive power of the State, which extends to matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws
- Article 14, Constitution of India — Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws; any policy decision of the Government must be fair, reasonable and justified on the touchstone of Article 14
- Odisha Transport Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 — Framed under proviso to Article 309 to regulate recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Odisha Transport Service
- Executive Instructions dated 17.11.1981 (No.17315) — Issued by Commerce & Transport Department, Government of Odisha, providing for recruitment to posts of Assistant Regional Transport Officer pending finalisation of cadre rules
- Resolution dated 17.10.2017 — Restructured the Odisha Transport Service, upgraded post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer from Group C to Group B w.e.f. 17.10.2017
Full Analysis
Premium Content
Subscribe to access the full analysis, practical implications, and related case mapping.
Subscribe — ₹99/monthAlready a subscriber? Sign inAdvocate's Note — Agarawal Associates
Professional insight for advocates on how to deploy this judgment in practice...
Subscribe to access the Advocate's Note.
Key Conditional Rule / Important Caveat
This judgment applies ONLY where (a) recruitment or promotion rules have been superseded by new rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, (b) the new rules provide for a different method of recruitment (e.g., from promotion to direct recruitment), (c) no final act (such as convening of DPC, finalisation of select list, or actual appointment) was completed under the old rules before the new rules came into force, and (d) the Government has taken a conscious policy decision to fill vacancies under the new rules. If the DPC had already been convened and the selection process was completed under the old rules before the new rules came into force, the saving clause ('things done before such supersession') would protect those actions, and the old rules would govern. The judgment does NOT apply where the Government's decision to change the recruitment method is arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Cases Distinguished
- Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284 — The proposition that vacancies must be filled on the basis of rules existing on the date when they arose was impliedly overruled by fifteen subsequent decisions and expressly overruled by Raj Kumar v. State of H.P. (2023) 3 SCC 773. This judgment follows Raj Kumar.
Cases Cited
- Raj Kumar v. State of H.P. (2023) 3 SCC 773 — Three-Judge Bench overruled Y.V. Rangaiah, holding that there is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be filled on the basis of law existing on the date they arose; the right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration under the rules in force on that date.
- Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. (2011) 6 SCC 725 — Held that there is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of law that existed on the date when they arose; Rangaiah must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein.
- Union of India v. Krishna Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 319 — Held that there is only a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with rules which prevail on the date on which consideration for promotion takes place.
- K. Ramulu v. S. Suryaprakash Rao (1997) 3 SCC 59 — Held that the Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules; the employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion under repealed rules.
- Union of India v. Somasundaram Viswanath (1989) 1 SCC 175 — Held that rules framed under Article 309 prevail over executive instructions issued under Article 162.
- Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1910 — Held that for selection posts, promotion is not automatic based on ranking in the gradation list; merit is the primary consideration for selection posts.
Courtroom Arguments
For Petitioner
New Recruitment Rules Supersede Executive Instructions — (2026) INSC 505
The 2021 Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India supersede the Executive Instructions of 1981.
For Respondent
Vacancies Under Old Rules Must Be Filled Under Old Rules — (2026) INSC 505
The Executive Instructions of 1981 were in force when the vacancies arose and when the respondents became eligible. Under the law laid down in Y.V.
Found this useful? Share it with your colleagues.
One tap sends the case name, citation, key issue and link.
Take This Further in Court
2 courtroom argument frameworks available for this case — full submission structure, bench question simulator, and opposition rebuttals.
Disclaimer: This summary is prepared by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For legal matters, consult a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in