Rule 5(1)
|
Adhoc-Based Employee Regulation Rules, 1994
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
|
Ministry of Establishment, Bangladesh =VS= Abul Hashem(Md.) |
8 LM (AD) 311 |
Ad-hoc appointment–
|
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
|
Iqbal Molla(Md.) =VS= Moslehuddin(Md.) |
8 LM (AD) 161 |