An employment notification was published for appointment in the post of Professor by the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (the BSMMU). The employment notification, appointment of the writ petitioner, service of the petitioner as professor for about 7 years in the BSMMU and that after cancellation of his appointment, the repeated request of the BSMMU authority to take class in FCPS and MS (final) course in the BSMMU and from repeated inquiries and reports of the Inquiry Committees it appears to us that the turnabout of the BSMMU authority in flip-flopflipin stance has put the writ petitioner in a predicament which should be deprecated. Conclusion arrived at by the High Court Division does not calls for any interference. ...Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University=VS=Dr. Zahidul Haq, (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 215] ....View Full Judgment

It clear that in case any of the teachers has been working elsewhere or has been working in a different capacity in the Institute, such teachers shall not be entitled to the benefit of the above declaration. Their further fate will depend on the fresh decision to be taken by the appellant. .....Indian Institute of IT =VS= Dr. Anurika Vaish, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (SC) 20] ....View Full Judgment

Appointment– Legitimate right–
The High Court Division observed that the petitioners having been successful in their written and viva examinations were finally recommended for the post of Compressor Operator and Technician by the specially constituted committees comprising high officials of GTCL and as such the recommendation of the said committees could be termed as internal notes or internal communication of GTCL. The High Court Division observed “Though the recommendations or the fact of constitution of such committees were not officially communicated to the petitioners at any stage, it cannot be denied that, in a transparent appointment process by a government owned enterprise, such process of appointment cannot be kept secret terming the same as internal communication. Therefore, obliviously, the petitioners somehow got information about those recommendations of the committees.” The High Court Division went on to hold that the writ petitioners acquired a legitimate right in favour of their appointment in the GTCL and, therefore, declared the impugned notification cancelling the appointment process as without lawful authority. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the High Court Division was not correct in finding that the writ petitioners had acquired a legitimate right to appointment in GTCL. Accordingly, the judgement and order of the High Court Division is hereby set aside. ...Gas Transmission Company Ltd., Dhaka =VS= Mohammad Abdul Aziz, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 292] ....View Full Judgment