Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Ad-Hoc Rule, 1994 (এডহক ভিত্তিক নিযুক্ত কর্মচারী নিয়মিতকরণ বিধিমালা, ১৯৯৪)
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Rule 5(1)

read with
The General Principle of Seniority, 1970
The provisions of the General Principle of Seniority, held that the Office Order impugned in the instant writ petition was arbitrary and unreasonably issued, which is both malice in law as well as in fact. It was held that the impugned order was issued with an ulterior motive in order to promote someone who is not duly qualified to be so appointed in exclusion to the senior, qualified, competent officers acting in the said post, which is grossly arbitrary and discriminatory in nature amounting to denial of equal protection of law and protection in accordance with law. It was further held that the impugned order is contradictory with the Ad Hoc Rule, 1994, which clearly mentions that seniority will be determined from the date of confirmation and that the General Principle of Seniority, 1970 has no manner of application to ad hoc employees. We do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgement. The civil petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. …Ministry of Establishment, Bangladesh =VS= Abul Hashem(Md.), (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 311] ....View Full Judgment

Ad-hoc appointment–
Work charge basis can not be equated with Ad-hoc appointment. Appointment on 'work charge' basis means appointment against a specified work whereas appointment on ad-hoc basis means appointment for a particular purpose. …Iqbal Molla(Md.) =VS= Moslehuddin(Md.), (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 161] ....View Full Judgment