Appellate Division
National University and another v Mohammad Abu Hanif Khandakar and others
Civil Appeal 32/2025 · Appeal allowed; reinstatement directed · Decided 27 May 2025
In 2004 a Member of Parliament filed a writ petition seeking cancellation of appointments made by the National University between November 2003 and August 2004. The High Court Division discharged the Rule in 2006, holding the appointments lawful, and no appeal was filed. In 2010 another Member of Parliament, a third party, applied for review, which the High Court Division allowed in 2011. After the Appellate Division sent the writ petition back for rehearing, the High Court Division in 2012 cancelled the appointments and the University terminated 988 officers and employees. The Appellate Division affirmed that decision in 2016. On a later review, leading to this appeal, the Appellate Division held that the 2010 review application was invalid because no certified copy of the judgment was filed with it, that it was four years late without explanation, that it did not show how the applicant was aggrieved, and that the employees had been condemned unheard. The 2016 judgment was set aside and reinstatement was directed.
- Whether a review application filed without a certified copy of the judgment complained of, as rule 3 of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) Rules, 1973 requires, could validly be entertained.
- Whether a third party could seek review four years after the judgment without stating how he was aggrieved or explaining the delay.
- Whether the termination of National University employees that followed those review proceedings, to which they were not parties, should be undone.
- Under rule 3 of Chapter X of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) Rules, 1973, every review application must be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order complained of; this requirement is mandatory and a review application without it is incomplete, invalid and liable to be rejected in limine.
- A third party may seek review only if aggrieved by the judgment, and must state how he is aggrieved and explain any delay; the review applicant here did neither.
- The limitation period for review of a High Court Division judgment in its original jurisdiction is 20 days under serial number 162 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, and a party whose own laches cause delay cannot interfere with rights that accrued to others in the meantime.
- The employees were not impleaded in or served with notice of the review application and were therefore condemned unheard; review cannot be sought merely for a rehearing and a fresh decision.
- The National University was directed to reinstate the petitioners in their former posts in accordance with its Syndicate's decision, with the period out of service treated as extraordinary leave without prejudice to seniority.
on this single count, the application for review was liable to be rejected in limine by the High Court Division as being incomplete and, therefore, invalid.
