Bangladesh Export processing Zone Authority, 1990

Bangladesh Export processing Zone Authority,
1990

Rule-3(6)
read with Rule 14 and

Defence
Service Officers (Appointment and Fization of Seniority in Civil Post) Rules,
1983

Rule-5

Legal right —In the instant case we found that
the appointment of the Respondent No. 3 was not made under the Rules, 1983 and
the Rules, 1983 is not applicable in his case and he is not entitled to get any
benefit under Rules, 1983, Accordingly, the seniority list was illegal and
without any lawful authority and the writ petitioner being appointment earlier
in the post of manager he is senior to Respondent No. 3 as per Rule, 1990—the
respondent No. 3 having functioning and continuing in the post of Deputy
General Manager for a pretty long time, he has acquired a legal right..

M. Shamsul Haque Vs. BEPZA & Ors. 9BLT (HCD)-366.

 

Bangladesh Export processing Zone Authority, 1990

 

Bangladesh Export processing Zone Authority,
1990


Rule-3(6) read with Rule 14 and

Defence Service Officers (Appointment and Fixation of Seniority
in Civil Post) Rules 1983

Rule-5

Legal right —In the
instant case we found that, the appointment of the Respondent No. 3 was not
made under the Rules, 1983 and the Rules. 1983 is not applicable in his case
and he is not entitled to get any benefit under Rules, 1983. Accordingly, the
seniority list was illegal and without any lawful authority and the writ
petitioner being appointment earlier in the post of manager he is senior to
Respondent No. 3 as per Rule, 1990—the respondent No. 3 having functioning and
continuing in the post of Deputy General Manager for a pretty long time, he has
acquired a legal right.

M. Shamsul Haque Vs. BEPZA
& Ors. 9BLT (HCD)-366.

 

Bangladesh Export Processing Zone Authority, 1990

 

Bangladesh Export Processing Zone Authority,
1990

 

Rule-3(6) read with Rule 14 and

Defence Service Officers (Appointment and Fixation of
Seniority in Civil Post) Rules, 1983

Rule 5

Legal right — In the
instant case we found that the appointment of the respondent No.3 was not made
under the Rules. 1983 and the Rules, 1983 is not applicable in this case and he
is not entitled to get any benefit under Rules. 1983. Accordingly, the
seniority given to the Respondent No.3 in the gradation iist was illegal and
without any lawful authority and the writ petitioner being appointment earlier
in the post of manager he is senior to Respondent No.3 as per Rule. 1990 —the
Respondent No.3 having functioning and continuing in the post of Deputy General
manager for a Pretty long time, he has acquired a legal right.

M. Shamsul Haque Vs. BEPZA & Ors. 10 BLT (HCD)-366.