IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
(APPELLATE DIVISION)
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 173 of 1996
Decided On: 21.08.1996
Appellants: The Managing Director, Bangladesh Biman Corporation and ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Md. Reza Kamal and others
**Hon’ble Judges:**A.T.M. Afzal, C.J., Mustafa Kamal, Latifur Rahman, Mohammad Abdur Rouf and Bimalendu Bikash Roy Chowdhury, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Amir Hossain Khondker, Advocate, instructed by Md. Nowab Ali, Advocate-on-Record
For Respondents/Defendant: A.K.M. Nazrul Islam, Advocate, instructed by Sharifuddin Chaklader, Advocate-on-Record, For Respondent No. 1
Subject: Civil Procedure
Catch Words
Mentioned IN
Disposition:
Petition Dismissed
Case Note:
Bangladesh Biman Corporation (Service) Regulation, 1979**
Regulation No. 19(1)(a)
Seniority of Employees
The recruitment of the respondents and those included in the impugned seniority list being one, the fact of their being included in the first batch for training and thereby getting an appointment a few days before the next batch of trainees, which is merely of fortuitous and accidental, is quite immaterial for determining seniority, the entire period of training of the different batches is to be treated as one training for the purpose of counting seniority as the process of recruitment was one and the same.**
JUDGMENT
A.T.M. Afzal, C.J.
-
Respondent No. 1, a Junior Traffic Assistant in the Bangladesh Biman Corporation, petitioner before us (through its Managing Director and Personnel Officer), filed writ petition No. 683 of 1994 calling in question the seniority list prepared by the petitioner for the Junior Traffic Assistants and circulated under Memo dated 7.6.92 and further objecting to the promotion of two of his colleagues, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, to the post of Senior Traffic Assistant by Memo dated 21.4.94. The High Court Division, by the impugned judgment and order dated 24 January, 1996, made the Rule absolute in the writ petition and directed the petitioners to revise the seniority list of the respondents and grant seniority to respondent No. 1 above respondents No. 2-15 in the revised seniority list and further to consider his case of promotion to the post of Senior Traffic Assistant upon certain terms. Now this petition for leave to appeal from the impugned judgment. The only point raised for our consideration by the learned Counsel for the petitioners being already covered substantially, though not directly, by an earlier decision of this Division in Civil Petition Nos. 198-205 of 1996 which were between the same class of Officers, namely, Junior Traffic Assistants and the petitioners, who were also petitioners therein, and the dispute there having been with regard to seniority of the concerned officers inter se which the High Court Division decided in favour of the writ-petitioners as in the present case, we shall refrain from considering the facts, except briefly, of this case.
-
Facts are rather undisputed. Respondent No. 1 who was initially appointed an Accounts Assistant in the Finance Department of the Biman, was recruited along with the respondents and others as a Junior Traffic Assistant in the Customer Services Department of the Biman pursuant to an advertisement in that behalf in the daily newspapers including Ittefaq dated 10.6.89. After undergoing training for a short period he was given appointment on 24.1.90 whereas respondents No. 2-15 were given appointments on 7.1.90 i.e., prior to the appointment of respondent No. 1. The training could not be imparted to the successful recruits all at a time because of logistic constraints and it had to be arranged by batches. Now it is not disputed that the question of seniority is to be governed by regulation 19(1)(a) of the Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees (Service) Regulation, 1979 which reads as follows:
- Seniority of the existing employees:
(1) Seniority of the existing employees of the Corporation shall be determined in the following manner.
(a) All the persons appointed by direct recruitment to a grade as outsider candidates shall rank Junior to persons recruited along with them as departmental candidates:
(b)………………….
(c)………………….
(d)…………………
-
In the impugned seniority list respondent No, 1 was put below respondents No. 2-15 (direct recruits) and his grievance that it was done in violation of the aforesaid regulation. The petitioners took the simple stand that respondents No. 2-15 were shown as senior to respondent No. 1 because his appointment was on a later date, he having received training in the next batch after respondents No. 2-15 and getting appointment thereafter. According to the petitioners, there was thus no violation of regulation 19(1)(a) of the Regulation. The petitioners contended that respondent No. 1 was given seniority as a departmental candidate above all the trainees of his batch.
-
The High Court Division negatived the contention of the petitioners, besides rejecting the contentions raised on behalf of respondents No. 2-15, by holding, after an elaborate consideration of the facts of the case and the aforesaid regulation, that although respondent No. 1 was imparted training and appointed sometime later than respondents No. 2-15, all of them were recruited under one and the same process of recruitment and therefore respondent No. 1 must be deemed to have been recruited along with the other respondents as contemplated in regulation 19(1) (a) of the “Regulation and as such he was entitled to claim seniority over the other respondents by invoking the said regulation. The High Court Division held that in determining seniority of the respondents regulation 19(1)(a) was not complied with and as such the impugned seniority list was not sustainable.
-
In Civil Petition Nos. 198-205 of 1996 regulation 18(C) of the Regulation fell for consideration in which it was held that the date of completion of training of a particular batch of successful recruits would not be the determining factor for governing seniority but the entire period of training of the different batches would be treated as one training for the purpose of counting seniority because the process of recruitment was one.
-
The same principle is involved in the present case. The recruitment of the respondents being one, the fact of being included in the first batch for training and thereby getting as appointment few days before the next batch of trainees, which is merely fortuitous, is immaterial for the purpose of application of regulation 19(1)(a) which speaks of recruitment and undisputedly the respondents were recruited in the same recruitment. Mr. Amir Hossain Khondker, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, finds it difficult, in view of the said earlier decision and the reasons given by the High Court Division in the present case, to press the ground which did not find favour with the High Court Division. He has not made any other submission.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.