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, [10 LM (AD) 292]
Appointment as Assistant Revenue Officer- It is open to the appointing authority to decide how many appointment should be made. The mere fact that a candidate's name appears in the waiting list will not entitle him to be appointed. Only because a panel has been prepared by the PSC, the same by itself would not mean that the same should be given effect to irrespective of the fact that there was no such rule operating in the field. The empanelled candidates have not acquired any enforceable right since there is no statutory provision conferring a right upon them to claim appointment.
In the case of State of Hariyana V. Ajoy Walia reported in AIR 1997 SC 2007 there vas a requisition from the Irrigation Department for filling up four vacancies but the Subordinate Selection Board prepared a list of 28 candidates and recommended them for appointment. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the State to appoint all the selected candidates. While setting aside the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court of India held that the Board had no jurisdiction to select 28 candidates against 4 vacancies.
We find substance in the appeal. Thus the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court Division in set aside. All the civil petitions are disposed of in the light of observations and decision made in the appeal. Public Service Commission =VS= Ripon Chandra Shil, [6 LM (AD) 147]
Appointment- 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, [6 LM (AD) 215]
Appointment- 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 ITVS Dr. Anurika Vaish, [3 LM (SC) 20]
Appointed as daily wager- Appointed as daily wager on 01.04.1986 by the Water Resources Department of the State. The services of the appellant were regularized on work charge establishment to the post of Pump Operator by order dated 06.05.2008. After attaining the age of superannuation, the appellant retired ση 30.07.2011. The appellant was, however, not paid the gratuity amount by the State which, according to him, was payable to him after his retirement. .....Netram Sahu VS State of Chhattisgarh, [4 LM (SC) 86]
Cancellation of appointment letter-
The authority is always at liberty to take action against any individual who either suppressed any material information and/or took recourse to fraud or forgery in obtaining the appointment. We are fully in agreement with such observation and would not wish to condone any fraudulent or illegal activity on the part of the writ petitioners in obtaining their appointment. However, the authority is bound to identify any wrong doing on the part of any individual and to seek his explanation before cancelling his appointment letter. Government of Bangladesh VS= Md. Babul Howlader, [4 LM (AD) 213]
Any opinion given by the Supreme Court regarding the terms and conditions of service of any judicial officer should be respected by the Executive The opinion of the Supreme Court regarding the terms and conditions of the service of the lower judicial officers would prevail Any opinion given by the Supreme Court regarding the terms and conditions of service of any judicial officer should be respected by the Executive and its opinion cannot be ignored. There cannot be any dual administration in the administration of justice and the same will not be healthy for the administration of justice. If the views taken by the High Court Division is accepted, there will be chaos and confusion in the administration of justice. If Appellate Division looks at the scheme of the constitution, there will be no doubt that the opinion of the Supreme Court regarding the terms and conditions of the service of the lower judicial officers. would prevail. There is no doubt about it. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Sontosh Kumar Shaha, [4 LM (AD) 143]
Any person in the service of Republic or any statutory authority cannot seek judicial review in respect of terms and conditions of service or action taken relating to him as a person to such service including transfer, promotion, and pension rights, except :-
a) in matters relating to challenging the vires of the law;
b) infringement of fundamental rights in which case also, there must be sufficient pleadings of such violation keeping in mind that such plea also can be taken in the tribunal because the constitution being the supreme law of the Country, it can be taken in aid by any Court/tribunal
2) The Administrative Tribunal shall be competent to deal with those matters and in appropriate cases of emergency; it can also pass interim order of injunction/stay subject to compliance of certain formalities.
3) The views taken in Mujibur Rahman 44 DLR (AD) 111 have been overruled.
4) If the action of the authority or order complained of in relation to the above matters are found to be coram non judice or without jurisdiction or is found malafide, judicial review is not available and the administrative tribunal can deal with these issues also. On this point, the decisions in Shaheda Khatun V. Administrative Appellate Tribunal, 3 BLC (AD) 155, Ehtesham Uddin V. Bangladesh, 33 DLR(AD) 154, Ismail Hoque V. Bangladesh, 34 DLR(AD) 125, Mostaque Ahmed V. Bangladesh, 34 DLR(AD)222 and Helal Uddin Ahmed V. Bangladesh, 45 DLR(AD)1 have also been overruled. Government of Bangladesh =VS= Sontosh Kumar Shaha, [4 LM (AD) 143]
Applicability of Service Rules- 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....... Pachimanchol Gas Company Ltd -VS-Nuruzzaman & others, [1 LM (AD) 180]
Compensation- The appellant is the Cooperative Marketing Society. The respondent was working with the appellant as a Peon from 01.07.1973. The appellant terminated the services of the respondent on 01.07.1985. The respondent, therefore, got the reference made through the State to the Labour Court to decide the legality and correctness of his termination order.
The appellant and respondent both were aggrieved by the award and filed writ petitions before the High Court to challenge the legality and correctness of the award passed by the Labour Court. The High Court, however, dismissed both the writ petitions. The respondent then accepted the compensation, which was awarded by the Labour Court.
The Labour Court was, therefore, justified in answering the reference in appellant's favour and against the respondent by rightly holding that Section 25(H) of the ID Act had no application to the facts of this case whereas the High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) was not right in allowing the respondent's prayer by directing the appellant to give him reemployment on the post of Peon.
The appeal succeeds accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the award of the Labour Court is restored.... Barara Cooperative Marketing VS Workman Pratap Singh, [6 LM (SC) 149]
Creation of any new post- The writ respondent had/has no authority to create any new post in his office. Creation of any new post in any Government office is absolutely under the domain of the Government When it is impossible to conduct an execution, since the object to be executed is unavailable, it must be considered as non executable judgment due to unavailability of object to execute and court cannot pass any order which cannot be executed.
The judgment and order passed by the High Court Division on 18.01.2009 in Writ Petition No.7455 of 2007 is unexecutable. We are of the view that the said judgment has been passed beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court Division. Thus the same is a nullity and it requires to be set aside. Government of Bangladesh =VS= Jannatul Ferdus, [10 LM (AD) 140]
Entitled to continuity of service till the date of his superannuation with all service benefits- Filed by the respondent has been allowed and an order dated 29th July, 2005 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and that dated directing removal of the respondent from the service of the appellant-bank quashed. The High Court has as a result directed the appellant bank provide all service/retiral benefits to the petitioner within ninety days of the order. The challenge mounted by the appellant arises in the following circumstances:
We assume that the High Court's direction for release of service benefits would include the release of his salaries also for the period mentioned above. We are, however, of the opinion that while proceedings need not be remanded for a fresh start from the beginning, grant of full salary for the period between the date of dismissal and the date of superannuation would not also be justified. We, therefore, allow this appeal but only in part and to the extent that while orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority shall stand quashed, and the respondent entitled to continuity of service till the date of his superannuation with all service benefits on that basis, he shall be entitled to only 50% of the salary for the period between the date of his removal from service till the date of superannuation. .....Allahabad Bank VS= Krishna Narayan Tewari, [3 LM (SC) 1]
