Recruitment from the waiting list–
|
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
|
Rupali Bank Ltd., Dhaka =VS= Shahrier Perves(Md.) |
7 LM (AD) 166 |
Promotion matter-
|
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
|
Bangladesh Public Service Commission (BPSC) =VS= Intaz Uddin(Md.) |
7 LM (AD) 225 |
|
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
|
Mohammad Abul Monsur Khan=VS=Mir Bahar Shahdat Hossain |
9 LM (AD) 120 |