Recruitment from the waiting list– In absence of any statutory provision one year can be considered as reasonable period for validly of a waiting list–
Failed to show any statement or undertaking that the Bank authorities assured the writ petitioners that they would be appointed since their names are in the waiting list. Mere advertisement is not a promise to appoint. The same is an invitation to fairly complete with all similarly situated persons who think that fulfill particular eligibility criteria. The doctrine does not give scope to claim relief straightway from the appointing authority as no crystallized right as such is involved.
In absence of any statutory provision one year can be considered as reasonable period for validly of a waiting list.
It is settled principle that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the writ petitioners directing the Banks to appoint the writ petitioners since they failed to establish that they have acquired an enforceable legal right to be appointed in the Banks since their names were empanelled and that the Banks have legal duty to appoint them. We find substance in the appeals, all the appeals are allowed. …Rupali Bank Ltd., Dhaka =VS= Shahrier Perves(Md.), (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 166] ....View Full Judgment

Bangladesh Public Service Commission (BPSC) has a right to recommend only BPSC does not have any right to determine the date from which the promotion should be given effect–
Writ-petitioners were given current charge of SAS on successfully completing their subordinate Accounts Service or Subordinate Military Accounts Service Examination conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General and that the BPSC has a right to recommend only. It was held that BPSC does not have any right to determine the date from which the promotion should be given effect.
According to the Recruitment Rules, 1983 the condition which is required to be fulfilled for promotion to the post of Superintendent is the passing of SAS Superintendent Part-II Examination. The writ-petitioners passed the examination and their names were forwarded to the BPSC for recommendation. No authority has been given to BPSC to determine the date of promotion. Hence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgement and order. The civil petitions for leave to appeal are dismissed. …Bangladesh Public Service Commission (BPSC) =VS= Intaz Uddin(Md.), (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 225] ....View Full Judgment

আনসার ও ভিডিপি অধিদপ্তরের আনসার ক্যাডার বহির্ভূত নন-ক্যাডার কর্মকর্তা নিয়োগ বিধিমালা, ২০১০
Rule 7(2)
Recruitment Rules, 1984
He is entitled to get benefit of the Service Rules under which he got his appointment–– The High Court Division correctly observed that the Government may from time to time change the terms and conditions of service of the employees or introduce new service rules provided it would not affect the right of the existing employees. The High Court Division also correctly observed that the Rules, 2010 was not given any retrospective affect. Therefore, the said Rules was prospective in nature and, as such, it would be applicable for the newcomers but not the existing employees and officers. The High Court Division also correctly observed that it is well settled principle of law that the right accrued under the provision of the previous recruitment rules cannot be changed or altered to the disadvantage of the existing employees by subsequent amendment.
As the writ petitioners were appointed before promulgation of the Rules, 2010, they would get the benefit of the Rules, 1984 and their terms and conditions of service would be regulated under the said Rules. The decision reported in 3 SCOB [2015] AD 27, “There is no dispute that the petitioner got appointment in 1997, that is, long before the promulgation of the Service Rules of 2005. So he is entitled to get benefit of the Service Rules under which he got his appointment, that is, he is entitled to get the benefits as provided in Service Rules of 1988 and his service would be regulated under the said provision of law.” The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. ...Mohammad Abul Monsur Khan=VS=Mir Bahar Shahdat Hossain, [9 LM (AD) 120] ....View Full Judgment