Mr. Datta, the respondents have been serving for many years. The post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer was upgraded from Level 9 to Level 10. Isn't it natural for them to expect promotion to that post? Why should they be deprived of that opportunity?

My Lord, the respondents are not being deprived of any vested right. They have no vested right to promotion. The only right they have is to be considered for promotion in accordance with the rules in force on the date of consideration. The 2021 Rules were in force when the question of consideration arose. The 2021 Rules provide for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer through competitive examination. The respondents are free to apply for that examination. But they cannot claim that the State must convene a DPC under superseded instructions. The Government took a conscious policy decision to restructure the cadre and change the recruitment method. That decision is within its competence and is not arbitrary.

The Executive Instructions of 1981 were in force for over 40 years. The respondents were eligible and vacancies existed. Why should the State not fill those vacancies under the old instructions? This Court in Rangaiah held that vacancies arising before rule amendment should be filled under the old rules.

My Lord, Rangaiah has been overruled by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar. The Court in Raj Kumar held that there is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be filled on the basis of the law existing on the date when they arose. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill vacancies under the old rules. The 2021 Rules came into force on 5 January 2022. No DPC was convened and no appointments were made under the Executive Instructions before that date. The respondents' claim is therefore governed by the 2021 Rules, not by the superseded instructions.

The saving clause in the 2021 Rules says 'except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such supersession.' The Transport Commissioner had already recommended the convening of a DPC on 3 September 2021. Is that not an 'act done' under the Executive Instructions?

My Lord, a recommendation is not an 'act done' under the Executive Instructions. The Executive Instructions contemplated the convening of a DPC, the selection of candidates, and the issuance of appointment orders. None of these acts were completed before the 2021 Rules came into force. The Transport Commissioner's letter was merely a recommendation to the Government. The Government rejected that recommendation on 11 October 2021. There was no 'act done' that could be saved. The saving clause protects completed actions, not inchoate claims or recommendations. The High Court's interpretation would allow the saving clause to swallow the entire supersession — every pending recommendation would be treated as an 'act done,' rendering the new rules meaningless.

The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the State's appeal on the ground that it is an intra-court appeal and the Single Judge's findings of fact are not perverse. Why should this Court interfere with concurrent findings?

My Lord, this Court can interfere with concurrent findings when there is an error of law. The Single Judge and the Division Bench both proceeded on the law laid down in Y.V. Rangaiah, which has been overruled by this Court in Raj Kumar. The Division Bench summarily rejected the State's reliance on Raj Kumar without engaging with its applicability. That is a clear error of law. Moreover, the Division Bench's observation that it does not sit in re-appreciating findings of fact in an intra-court appeal is not an absolute bar when the Single Judge's order is based on an incorrect legal proposition. This Court has repeatedly held that interference is warranted when there is a patent error of law.

For PetitionerService Premium

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.

State of Odisha v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash — (2026) INSC 505

Core Argument

The 2021 Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India supersede the Executive Instructions of 1981. No DPC was convened and no appointments were made under the old instructions before the new rules came into force. The respondents have no vested right to be considered for promotion under the superseded instructions.

Key Precedents

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 Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill vacancies under old 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.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in