State of Odisha v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash 2026 INSC 505 - Service Law - Promotion -Selection Post
Service Law -An employee does not have a vested right to be promoted nor does he possess a legitimate expectation to be promoted - The limited right that an employee can legitimately claim is for consideration of his candidature. However, should the government, being the appointing authority choose, in its wisdom, to not fill up vacancies by promotion, especially when there is a change in cadre and restructuring of posts, it cannot be compelled to carry out the appointments. In case of promotion, if the service rules in force confer an automatic right upon the individual to be promoted, in such case one may have a right to be promoted. In the absence thereof, an employee, at best, has a right to be considered for promotion, strictly in accordance with service rules. (Para 26)
Service Law - When the post is a selection post and not one of promotion, the manner of selection is a matter of policy which completely vests with the Government. If the Government deemed it fit to change the method of selection, it was within its power, authority and competence. (Para 28)
Practice and Procedure- Mere reference of the precedent in the passing without engaging with it in the analysis is not sufficient compliance with the duty to assign reasons. (Para 14)
Case Info
Case name: State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash; State of Odisha & Ors. v. Aditya Bhanjan Sahoo (companion appeals).
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 505.
Coram: Dipankar Datta, J. and Augustine George Masih, J.
Judgment date: 18 May 2026.
Statutes / constitutional provisions referred:
- Article 309, Constitution of India (proviso) – framing of Odisha Transport Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021.
- Article 162, Constitution of India – executive instructions in absence of rules.
- Part XIV, Constitution of India – services under the Union and the States (in discussion of service jurisprudence).
Key case laws and citations discussed:
- State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar, (2023) 3 SCC 773.
- Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 382 (held impliedly overruled in Raj Kumar and expressly overruled in this judgment by following Raj Kumar).
- Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 725.
- Union of India v. Krishna Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 319.
- K. Ramulu v. S. Suryaprakash Rao, (1997) 3 SCC 59.
- Shyama Charan Dash v. State of Orissa, (2003) 4 SCC 218.
- State of Punjab v. Arun Kumar Aggarwal, (2007) 10 SCC 402.
- Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Chanan Ram, (1998) 4 SCC 202.
- Delhi Judicial Services Assn. v. Delhi High Court, (2001) 5 SCC 145.
- Union of India v. Somasundaram Viswanath, (1989) 1 SCC 175.
- Haryana SEB v. Gulshan Lal, (2009) 12 SCC 231.
- H.P. SEB v. K.R. Gulati, (1998) 2 SCC 624.
- Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910.
- Shankarshan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 (para 7).
- Union of India v. Glaxo India Ltd., (2011) 4 SCR 50.
- Union of India v. Arulmozhi Iniarasu, (2011) 7 SCC 397.
- N. Ramachandra Reddy v. State of Telangana, (2019) 11 SCR 792.
- Management of Narendra & Company v. Workmen of Narendra & Company, (2016) 3 SCC 340.
- Dr. Sharmad v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 711 (cited by respondent).
Summary in three sentences:The Supreme Court held that the State of Odisha was not bound to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee or to fill posts of Assistant Regional Transport Officer under old executive instructions once the cadre had been restructured and the Odisha Transport Service Rules, 2021 came into force. Relying heavily on Raj Kumar, the Court reiterated that employees have only a right to consideration in accordance with the rules in force on the date of consideration, and that the Government can bona fide decide not to fill earlier vacancies or to change the mode of recruitment (here, to selection by competitive examination through OPSC). It therefore set aside the Orissa High Court’s directions to hold DPC and to consider the respondents’ promotion claims under the 1981 executive instructions, and allowed the State’s appeals.