Md. Monjurul Hoque & others Vs. Public Service Commission & others, 3 LNJ (2014) 220

Case No: Writ Petition No. 5677 of 2010

Judge: Naima Haider,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Mr. Md. Salahuddin Dolon,Mr. Md. Omar Farouq,Ms. Nusrat Jahan,Mr. Md. Mokleshur Rahman,Mr. Md. Jahangir Alam,,

Citation: 3 LNJ (2014) 220

Case Year: 2014

Appellant: Md. Monjurul Hoque & others

Respondent: Public Service Commission & others

Subject: Writ Petition,Legitimate Expectation ,

Delivery Date: 2012-02-14


HIGH COURT DIVISION
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
 
Naima Haider, J.
   
And
Farid Ahmed, J

Judgment on
140.02.2012
  Md. Monjurul Hoque and others
... Petitioners
-Versus-
The Public Service Commission represented by its Chairman Old Airport Building, Tejgaon, dhaka-1215 and others.
.. Respondents.
 
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102
When all legal formalities were completed for recruitment of the petitioners in the posts of Assistant Director under the Bangladesh Public Service Commission Secretariat the impugned letter issued by the PSC seeking sanction of the Ministry of Establishment to fill up six vacant posts of Assistant Director from the qualified candidates of the 28th BCS examination is ex-facie illegal, malafide and without any lawful authority.
The petitioners had all be selected through a rigorous process of both written and viva voce examination, the Public Service Com-mission had published several notification on different dates almost in all the National Dailies to know the antecedents of the petitioner but no complaint was received against any of the petitioners. The local police Special Branch, National Security intelligence had paid repeated vistis in the present as well as the permanent address of the petitioners for police verification 01.11.2009 had cleared by giving security clearance. . . (19)
When all legal formalities were completed for recruitment of the petitioners. It was their legitimate expectation that they would be appointed in the posts of Assistant Directors. We are of the view that Some amount of dubiousness on the part of the respondents have creped in when the police verification report was not supplied for a long period of time in spite of the fact that neither of any allegation was found against any of the petitioners nor any adverse report was furnished against any of them but the impugned letter was passed on 30-06-2010 while keeping the matter of appointment of the petitioners pending. . . .(22)
Instead of taking steps for appointment of the petitioners, the PSC issued the impugned letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment seeking sanction to fill up[ 6 (six) vacant posts of the Assistant Directors from the qualified candidates of the 28th BCS examination which is nothing but a malafide action. A provision which leaves an unbridled power to an authority can not in any sence be characterized as reasonable. When discretionary power is conferred on an administrative authority, it must be exercised according to law. When the mode of exercising a valid power is improper or unreasonable, there is an abuse of power. . . (24)
The impugned letter dated 30.06.2010 is without application of mind and the same is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of legal effect. The respondents are further directed to appoint the petitioners in the posts of Assistant Directors under the Bangladesh Public Service Commission Secretariat within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. . . (26)
 
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102
Legitimate expectation- The mere legitimate expectation of a citizen may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary and this is how the requirements of the due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non- arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. When all legal formalities were completed for recruitment of the petitioners, it was their legitimate expectation that they would be appointed in the posts of Assistant Directors.
Legitimate expectation is not the same thing as anticipation. It is distinct and different from a desire and hope. It is based on a right. It is grounded in the rule of law as requiring regularity, predictability and certainty in the Government's dealings with the public and the doctrine of legitimate expectation operates both in procedural and substantive matters. If a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of right guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross abuse of power or violation of principles of natural justice, the same can be questioned. It can be one of the grounds to consider but the Court must lift the veil and see whether the decision is violative of these principles warranting interference. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consid-eration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non- arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. While lifting such veil in the instant case we find that the respondents considered the petitioners 'applications after proper scrutiny and found them to be in order and accordingly, issued admit cards and allowed them to sit for the written test. The petitioners also faced viva voce examination and came out successful. The police verifications were done no adverse report was found. When all legal formalities were completed for recruitment of the petitioners, it was their legitimate expectation that they would be appointed in the posts of Assistant Directors. We are of the view that some amount of the dubiousness on the part of the Respondents have creped in when the police verification report was not supplied a long period of time in spite of the fact that neither any allegation was found against any of the petitioners nor any adverse report was furnished against any of them. To recapitulate once again, we note that prescribed forms for police verification were supplied on 06.06.2007 which were filled up and submitted, security clearance was given on 01.11.2009 by the Ministry of Home Affairs and impugned letter was passed on 30.06.2010 while keeping the matter of appointment of the petitioners pending. . .(22)
The Government does not have the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner and is always obliged to act fairly and reasonably even where the other party has no legal right. The process of selection in this case was long drawn and the petitioners and their families have been waiting for a long time with great hope that they would be appointed in the posts of Assistant Directors. We further take into account that the appointments of these petitioners were not even cancelled. The fact remains that the petitioners are yet to be appoints and for no fault of them, they all have become over- aged by now and have acquired an indefea-sible right to be appointed which can not be legitimately denied when no adverse finding appeared against any of the petitioners . . .(23)
The PSC has adopted a dilatory tactics to appoint the petitioner on one hand and on the other hand has taken an attempt to fill up the vacant posts of Assistant Directors which is clear case of “Double Standard” and a high handed action of the PSC. . . (24)
 
Mr. Md. Salahuddin Dolon with
Mr. Md. Omar Farouq, Advocates
. . . For the petitioner

Mr. Md. Mokleshur Rahman, DAG, with
Mr. Md. Jahangir Alam, AAG, with
Ms. Nusrat Jahan, AAG
. . . For the Respondents

Writ Petition No. 5677 of 2010
 
JUDGMENT
Naima Haider, J;
 
In this application under Article 102(2) of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, a Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why their inaction and failure to appoint the petitioners in the posts of Assistant Director under the Bangladesh Public Service Commission Secretariat and impugned letter dated 30.06.2010 as in Annexure-L to this petition should not be declared to have been done and passed without any lawful authority is of no legal effect and/or pass such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
 
The facts necessary for disposal of the Rule are briefly stated:
         In response to an advertisement made by the Public Service Commission in the Daily Ittefaq on 5.10.2006 inviting applications for appointment in 4 permanent and 2 temporary posts of Assistant Director under the PSC Secretariat, the petitioners having the requisite qualifications applied for the same. After careful scrutiny, the PSC Secretariat issued interview cards asking them to sit for written examination. The written examination was held on 08.12.2006 and about 17,000 candidates sat for the written examination. The result of the written examination was published on 10.01.2007 and only 59 candidates came out successful. The result was published in the National Dailies the next day.
 
The petitioners and other successful candidates were called for viva voce examination. The petitioners passed the viva voce examination and were found suitable for recruitment. Thereafter, the petitioners were supplied with police verification and medical examination form vide Memo No. Bashokokosh /prosha-1/Shoshupopu-21/2003 (part-1) /472 dated 05.06.2007 and all the petitioners had submitted their forms by filling up those on the same day.
 
All the petitioners were given the recommendation letter manifesting their selection on 06.06.2007. The recommendation of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 8 were sent by the PSC through registered post but those were not delivered to them for unknown reasons.
 
On 12.06.2007 the Deputy Secretary Administration of the PSC had sent a list of the petitioners to the Director General, Department of Health to take necessary steps for medical examination of the petitioners. Pursuant to the said letter, the office of the Director General vide letter dated 20.06.2007 had requested the Dhaka Medical College Hospital (DMCH) authority to conduct medical examination of the petitioners. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of DMCH vide letter Secretary vide letter No. Damekha/posha-6/Meboard dated 25/06/2007 had informed the Secretary of the PSC Secretariat asking him to ensure presence of the petitioners on 09.07.2007 before the standing medical board of DMCH along with others reports.
 
The PSC was under legal obligation to inform the petitioners to appear before the medical board with the reports and the treasury challan as mentioned in the letter of the DMCH dated 25.06.2007 but for malafide reasons they did not inform the petitioners but the petitioners on their own initiatives had been able to collect the correspondences long after the date fixed for their medical examination.
 
Thereafter, the PSC on different dates had published several notifications almost in all the National Dailies to know the character and antecedents of the petitioners and the same were made inviting complaints or adverse remarks, if any, from any quarter, but no complaint was received against any of the petitioner. It is further stated that subsequently Local police, Special branch(SB), National Security Intelligence (NSI) had paid repeated visits in the present and permanent addresses of the petitioners for police verification on several occasions and found nothing adverse against the petitioners.
 
When nothing adverse was found against the petitioners, the Ministry of Home affairs vide its letter dated 01.11.2009 under Memo No. Shomo (Nira-4)/verification-1/09/9696 had sent the security clearance along with the NOC with regard to the petitioner to the PSC. Thus, all legal formalities were completed for recruitment of the petitioners and it was their legitimate expectation that they would be appointed in the post of Assistant Director. But as ill luck would have it, no step was taken.
 
The PSC instead of making the appointment of the petitioners vide letter No. Bashokokosh/prosha-1/Shoshupopu-21/2003 (Part-1)/04 dated 03.01.2010 had sent a letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment seeking opinion over the matter of appointments of the petitioners on the grounds of expiry of two years of the period of requisition. In the letter it has been further stated that long time was spent by the Government agencies for repeated verification of the petitioners. In reply to the said letter, the Ministry of Establishment vide letter No. Shomo(SP)-43/2001-41 dated 18.01.2010 had asked for specific decision of the PSC whether further extension of the requisitions for recruitment of the petitioners and others were required or not.
 
The PSC did not respond to the said letter and kept silent. After having waited for a long period, the father of the petitioner No.8 Md. Samsul Hoque filed an application to the Secretary, PSC on 07.02.2010 with a prayer to appoint the petitioners along with his daughter who was appointed against the quota reserved for the Freedom Fighters but no action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner No.8 had filed an application to the Honorable Prime Minister on 15.03.2010 with the similar prayer. Apart from that, all the petitioners had filed applications on 11.05.2008 and 04.12.2008 to the PSC for the appointment but nothing was done.
 
Instead of taking any steps for appointment of the petitioners the PSC vide letter No. 80.401.011.00.00.028.2010-607 dated 30.06.2010 had sent the impugned letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment seeking sanction to fill up 6 vacant posts of Assistant Director from the qualified candidates of the 28th BCS examination .The said letter is ex-facie illegal, malafide and without any lawful authority which has been sent to accommodate new people in the posts to be filled up by the petitioners only. It was also done to frustrate the claims of the petitioners’ appointment in those posts.
 
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned notice, the petitioners have moved this Court and obtained the Rule Nisi.
 
The respondent No. 1 entered appearance by filing an affidavit in opposition. The case of the Respondents in brief is that although recommendation were given in respect of 11 petitioners of the instant writ petition for the posts of Assistant Director on 06.06.2007, but this recommendation does not ensure their appointment as their character and antecedents report along with medical fitness from the concerned authorities were required to be made. There were some complaints repeatedly published in different newspapers about the malpractices of the said recommendation for selection of those 11 numbers for the post of Assistant Directors and those allegations were received from varied categories of persons. There were some rumours about manipulation and gradually as the said matter of malpractice was raised and voiced through different electronic and print media, some of the members and officials of the Public Service Commission were compelled to resign in a body. Despites all these, the police and intelligence departments were asked to report about those recommended candidates as part of their appointment process and as a result their medical examination had been kept in abeyance until receipt of that report so called for.
 
On 01.11.2009, the Public Service Commission received the necessary police report from the Ministry of Home Affairs but the period of No-Objection (NOC), issued by the Ministry of Establishment for appointment had expired before 01.11.2009. Although the Ministry of Establishment was asked to extend the period of NOC for appointment of the Assistant Directors but the said Ministry has not yet issued the NOC for appointment rather the said Ministry has asked for some queries and as a result of which appointment of the 11 numbers of Assistant Directors could not be made.
 
Mr. Salahuddin Dolon, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners at the outset submits that the Public Service Commission is a constitutional body which cannot keep a list of selected candidates pending for an indefinite period of time. The impugned letter dated 30.06.2010 manifestly proves that the vacancies are still available and the petitioners who had been selected long time back, the PSC with a malafide motive is now trying to attempt and fill up those posts by appointing other persons which is not justified. The learned Advocate points out that the petitioners have all been selected through a rigorous recruitment process and it is their legitimate expectation that they would be appointed. Mr. Dolon further contends that all the successful candidates have already acquired vested and indefeasible right to be appointed in the vacant posts of Assistant Directors. Mr. Dolon vehemently argues that the PSC does not have any unguided and arbitrary power to deny the appointment of the petitioners without any rhyme or reason when all the petitioners have been selected to be qualified to be appointed to the posts of Assistant Directors. He argues that the petitioners due to the age are now barred from applying for a new Government job afresh and the PSC has put all of them into serious uncertainty by delaying their appointments. Mr. Dolon strenuously argues that the PSC has adopted a dilatory tactics to appoint the petitioners on one hand and on the other hand has taken an attempt to fill up the vacant posts of Assistant Directors by appointing others which is clear case of “Double Standard” and a high handed action of the PSC.
 
Per contra, Mr. Mokleshur Rahman, the learned Deputy Attorney General submits that the petitioners although were informed through registered that they were given recommendation for selection of Assistant Director by the Secretariat of the Public Service Commission but this does not ensure their appointment. He next submits that as rumours were spread with regard to the manipulation and malpractice through different electronic media, the appointment process could not be completed. The learned DAG further points out that since some of the members and officials of the Public Service Commission were compelled to resign in a body, the intelligence department took sometime to submit the police verification report for which the process of appointment has been kept in abeyance.
 
We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the parties, perused the writ petition, its annexures, affidavit in opposition filed by respondent no.1 and the annexures thereto and other materials on record.
 
In unfolding the events which resulted in filing of this petition under Article 102 of the Constitution, it is necessary to recapitulate the sequence of dates as it appears from the record. Admittedly, pursuant to an advertisement dated 5.10.2005, the petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Director under the Bangladesh Public Service Commission Secretariat. It appears from the record that these petitioners went through a rigorous selection process of written and vice voce examination and were found suitable. They were then supplied with the prescribed forms for Police verification on 6.6.2007 which were filled up and submitted. No adverse report was found against any of the petitioners. The Ministry of Home Affairs vide its letter dated 1.11.2009 had cleared by giving security clearance. Instead of completing with the formalities, the Public Service Commission kept the matter of appointment of the petitioners pending and that too without any rhyme or reason. Faced with these facts, the impugned letter dated 30.6.2010 was passed which asked the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment to fill up 6 vacant posts of Assistant Director from qualified candidates of the 28th BCS Examination. Now, the question that arises for consideration in the instant application is whether the said impugned letter can be termed ex facie illegal, malafide and without lawful authority.
 
The principle of recruitment by open competition aims at ensuring equality of opportunity in the matter of employment and obtaining the services of the most meritorious candidates. Rule of law shall have to prevail in service jurisprudence. However, right to employment has not been transformed into a fundamental right under our Constitution, yet consideration on fair and equitable basis in employment is a right guaranteed to a person. It is not disputed that on the date of publication of advertisement and thereafter on the date of publication of the qualified candidates, the petitioners duly stood to satisfy the entire requisite criterion, including the age-limit. Ordinarily, any advertisement merely amounts to an invitation of qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State or any of its instrumentalities is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State or the authority concern has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. As already found by this Court that the petitioners had all been selected though a rigorous selection process of both written and viva voce examination, the PSC on different dates had published several notifications almost in all the National Dailies to know the antecedents of the petitioners but no complaint was received against any of the petitioners. The local police, Special Branch, National Security Intelligence had paid repeated visits in the present as well as the permanent addresses of the petitioners for police verification but found nothing adverse against the petitioners.  The Ministry of Home Affairs vide its letter dated 1.11.2009 had cleared by giving security clearance. For convenience and clarity, the letter dated 1.11.2009 is quoted below:
 
গণপ্রজাতন্ত্রী বাংলাদেশ সরকার
স্বরাষ্ট্র  মন্ত্রণালয়
নিরাপত্তা-৪ অধিশাখা।
স্বঃমঃ(নিরা-৪)/ ভেরিফিকেশন-১/০৯/৯৬৯৬   তারিখঃ০১.১১.২০০৯
বিষয়ঃ সহকারী পরিচালক পদে চাকুরীর জন্য প্রাথমিকভাবে মনোনীত প্রার্থীদের প্রাক-পরিচয় যাচাই প্রসঙ্গে
সূত্রঃ বাংলাদেশ সরকারী কর্ম কমিশন সচিবালয়ের স্মারক নং- বাসককস/ প্রশা-১/সঃসুঃপঃপু-২১/২০০৩(অংশ-১)৫৯৩ তারিখঃ০৫.০৭.২০০৯
উপর্যুক্ত বিষয় ও সুত্রের প্রেক্ষিতে বাংলাদেশ সরকারী কর্ম কমিশন সচিবালয়ের সহকারী পরিচালকের শূন্য ১১ (এগার) টি পদে প্রাথমিক ভাবে মনোনীত প্রার্থীদের নির্ধারিত ছক পূরণপূর্বক প্রাক-পরিচয় যাচাই সংত্র্রান্ত তদন্ত প্রতিবেদনের ছায়ালিপি এতদসঙ্গে সংযুক্ত করা হল।
এমতাবস্থায়, উক্ত পদে নিয়োগের নিমিত্ত ১১(এগার) জন প্রার্থীর নিরাপত্তা ছাড়পত্র প্রদানে অনাপত্তি নির্দেশত্র্রমে জ্ঞাপন করা হইল। (underlining is ours)
(বিপুল চন্দ্র রায়)
উপ-সচিব
ফোনঃ ৭১৭১৭০৫
সচিব
বাংলাদেশ সরকারী কর্ম কমিশন সচিবালয়
পুরাতন বিমানবন্দর ভবন
তেজগাঁও, ঢাকা।
 
The second point to be addressed is whether the petitioners have acquired an indefeasible right to be appointed and whether they have acquired any legitimate expectation that they would be appointed.
 
The doctrine of "legitimate expectation" has its genesis in the field of administrative law. In Attorney General of Hong Kong Vs. Ng Yuen Shiu [1983] 2 AC 629, a leading case on the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, Lord Fraser said: “when a public authority has promised to follow a certain procedure, it is in the interest of good administration that it should act fairly and should implement its promise, so long as the implementation does not interfere with its statutory duty.”
 
Legitimate expectation is not the same thing as anticipation. It is distinct and different from a desire and hope. It is based on a right. It is grounded in the rule of law as requiring regularity, predictability and certainty in the Government's dealings with the public and the doctrine of legitimate expectation operates both in procedural and substantive matters. If a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of right guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross abuse of power or violation of principles of natural justice, the same can be questioned. It can be one of the grounds to consider but the court must lift the veil and see whether the decision is violative of these principles warranting interference. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non- arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. While lifting such veil in the instant case, we find that the Respondents considered the petitioners’ applications after proper scrutiny and found them to be in order and accordingly, issued admit cards and allowed them to sit for the written test. The petitioners also faced viva voce examination and came out successful. The police verifications were done and no adverse report was found. When all legal formalities were completed for recruitment of the petitioners, it was their legitimate expectation that they would be appointed in the posts of Assistant Director. We are of the view that some amount of dubiousness on the part of the Respondents have creped in when the police verification report was not supplied for a long period of time in spite of the fact that neither any allegation was found against any of the petitioners nor any adverse report was furnished against any of them. To recapitulate once again, we note that prescribed forms for Police verification was supplied on 6.6.2007 which were filled up and submitted, security clearance was given on 1.11.2009 by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the impugned letter was passed on 30.6.2010 while keeping the matter of appointment of the petitioners pending.
 
The Government does not have the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner and is always obliged to act fairly and reasonably even where the other party has no legal right. The process of selection in this case was long-drawn and the petitioners and their families have been waiting for a long time with great hope that they would be appointed in the posts of Assistant Director. We further take into account that the appointments of these petitioners were not even cancelled. The fact remains that the petitioners are yet to be appointed and for no fault of them, they all have become over-aged by now and have acquired an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied when no adverse finding appeared against any of the petitioners. In fact, the feeble attempt of the learned Deputy Attorney General with regard to the malpractice and manipulation adopted during selection of the petitioners relying upon the Affidavit in Opposition pale into total insignificance and cannot be given any weightage as they clearly offend the reason, justice, fair play as discussed above.
 
On the score of malafides, we observe that Governmental action must be based on utmost good faith, belief and ought to be supported with reason, but if the action is otherwise or runs counter to the same, the action cannot but be ascribed to be mala fide. In this context, we find substance in the submission canvassed by Mr.Dolon that the PSC has adopted a dilatory tactics to appoint the petitioner on one hand and on the other hand has taken an attempt to fill up the vacant posts of Assistant Directors which is clear case of “Double Standard” and a high handed action of the PSC. Furthermore, we cannot lose sight of the fact as evident from Annexure-G series that on 12.06.2007 the Deputy Secretary Administration of the PSC had sent a list of the petitioners to the Director General, Department of Health to take necessary steps for medical examination of the petitioners. Pursuant to the said letter, the office of the Director General vide letter dated 20.06.2007 had requested the Dhaka Medical College Hospital (DMCH) authority to conduct medical examination of the petitioners. The PSC was under a legal obligation to inform the petitioners to appear before the medical board but for reasons best known to the authority, the same was not communicated to the petitioners. Rather, we note that instead of taking steps for appointment of the petitioners, the PSC issued the impugned letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment seeking sanction to fill up 6 vacant posts of Assistant Director from qualified candidates of the 28th BCS Exam-ination which is nothing but a malafide action. A provision which leaves an unbridled power to an authority cannot in any sense be characterised as reasonable. When discreti-onary power is conferred on an administrative authority, it must be exercised according to law. When the mode of exercising a valid power is improper or unreasonable, there is an abuse of the power. In State of Andhra Pradesh and Another. v. Nalla Raja Reddy and Others  reported in AIR 1967 SC 1458, the Court observed: "Official arbitrariness is more subversive of the doctrine of equality than statutory discrimination. In respect of a statu-tory discrimination one knows where he stands, but the wand of official arbitrariness can be waved in all directions indiscriminately."
On a perusal of the matter and the records in its entirety, we are constrained to hold that the Rule has merit and is bound to succeed.
Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute. The impugned letter dated 30.06.2010 as in Annexure-L to this petition is without application of mind and the same is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Respondents are further directed to appoint the petitioners in the posts of Assistant Director under the Bangladesh Public Service Commission Secretariat within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.
 
There is, however, no order as to cost.
 
Ed.