Recruitment Rules, 1983
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 Jeave to appeal are dismissed. ...Bangladesh Public Service Commission (BPSC) VS Intaz Uddin(Md.), [7 LM (AD) 225]
Recruitment Rules, 1983
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.), [7 LM (AD) 166]
