Supreme Court Judgments, Summarised

by Barrister Tahmidur Rahman | Nov 3, 2026

High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction

Md. Naimur Rahman Tony and others v Bangladesh and another

Writ Petition 1098/2025 · Decided 6 August 2026

Read the judgment ↓Every listing of this case Download PDF

2judges on the bench

10pages

52paragraphs

2laws considered

Summary

Twenty-five candidates in the Bangladesh Public Service Commission's 2022 recruitment for 108 posts of Assistant Family Planning Officer challenged the Commission's failure to publish its preserved panel/waiting list and to recommend candidates from it. The Commission had told the Ministry that vacancies caused by non-joining could be filled from the list, and the Ministry later reported that only 63 of the 108 candidates had joined and asked the Commission to recommend from the list. In a supplementary affidavit the Commission disclosed a resolution of 23.05.2026 to recommend candidates for 45 vacant posts from the list, but said it could not implement it because the list's one-year validity had expired. The High Court Division found that the delay arose from the authorities' internal mismanagement, not the petitioners. It condoned the expiry of the validity period for the limited purpose of implementing the resolution and directed the Commission to make the recommendations within 30 days, considering the petitioners if on the list.

Issues

Q1
Whether the Bangladesh Public Service Commission should be directed to recommend candidates from a preserved panel/waiting list to fill vacant posts of Assistant Family Planning Officer after the one-year validity of the list had expired.

Key points

The petitioners' grievance arose from the authorities' internal mismanagement or miscommunication, in which the petitioners had no role.
The only impediment to implementing the Commission's resolution was the expiry of the one-year validity of the panel/waiting list, not any finding that candidates were ineligible or that the posts could not be filled from the list.
The expiry of the validity period was condoned for the limited purpose of implementing the Commission's resolution of 23.05.2026.
The Commission was directed to recommend candidates from the panel/waiting list against the 45 vacant posts within 30 days and to consider the petitioners if they were on the list.

In view of the facts and circumstances we think that ends of justice would be met if the expiry of the said period is condoned for the limited purpose of implementing the aforesaid resolution.

From the judgment, Justice Urmee Rahman

Law considered

Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, Article 102Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, Article 44

The judgment

In the court’s own words.

Writ Petition 1098/2025, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 10 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.

Find in this judgmentPDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION NO. 1098 OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under Article 102 read with Article

44 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of

Bangladesh.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

Md. Naimur Rahman Tony and others

…..Petitioners

-VERSUS-

Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Medical

Education and Family Welfare Division, Ministry of

Health and Family Welfare and another

..… Respondents

Mr. Sheikh Mohammad Morshed, Advocate with

Mr. Md. Anisul Hassan, Advocate

..…. For the Petitioners

Mr. Md. Faruk Hossein, Advocate

……For the Respondent No. 1

Ms. Rumana Hoque, Advocate

……For the Respondent No. 2

Present:

Mr. Justice Sashanka Shekhar Sarkar

And

Justice Urmee Rahman

Heard on 08.07.2026,14.07.2026, 27.07.2026 and 03.08.2026

Judgment on 06.08.2026

Urmee Rahman, J:

Page 2

1In the instant matter a Rule Nisi was issued on an application under Article 102 read with Article 44 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh in the following terms:

“Let a Rule Nisi be issued calling upon the

2respondents to show cause as to why the purported failure

3and/or inaction of Respondent No. 2 in publishing or

4circulating the panel/waiting list of successful candidates for

5the post of Assistant Family Planning Officer, as confirmed

6and communicated vide memo no. 80.00.0000.301

7(Goponiyo) 11.2617.2023-06 dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-C)

8which records that a panel/waiting list was preserved

9following the recruitment examination conducted by the

10Controller of Examinations (Non-cadre) of the respondent

11no. 2, shall not be declared to be illegal, without lawful

12authority and is of no legal effect and as to why the

13purported failure and/or inaction of respondent no. 2 to

14consider and select the petitioners from panel/waiting list of

15successful candidates for the 81 vacant positions, as

16mandated pursuant to the requisition/instruction issued by

17Respondent No. 1 vide memo no.

1859.00.0000.110.11.025.24.776 dated 03.11.2024 (Annexure-

19D) should the petitioners be found eligible within the

20panel/waiting list, shall not be declared to be illegal, without

21lawful authority and is of no legal effect and as to why the

22respondents shall not be directed to forthwith take the

23necessary steps to publish the preserved panel/waiting list of

24successful petitioners who passed the recruitment

25examination conducted by the Controller of Examinations

26(Non-cadre) of the Respondent No. 2 for the post of Assistant

27Family Planning Officer as evident from the Annexure-C and

28to proceed with the selection of successful petitioners from

Page 3

the said panel/waiting list for direct appointment to the 81

29vacant posts in compliance with the requisition and

30instructions issued by Respondent No.1 vide Annexure-D

31should the petitioners be found eligible within the

32panel/waiting list, and/or pass such other or further order or

33orders as to this Court may seems fit and proper.”

34Short facts leading to the issuance of the instant Rule, are that, the petitioners, 25 (twenty five) in numbers, applied for the position of Assistant Family Planning Officer (10th grade) in response to appointment circular No. 80.00.0000.301.73.002.22-76, dated 27.04.2022, duly issued and published by Bangladesh Public Service Commission (PSC). The said recruitment process was undertaken by the PSC with the objective of effecting the direct appointment to 108 permanent posts within the Directorate of Family Planning. Following the submission of their respective applications, in strict conformity with the prescribed procedures, the Petitioners and others were issued admit cards with individual registration numbers, authorising them to participate in the recruitment examination and accordingly they appeared in the said examination. Thereafter, on 02.01.2024, the PSC published a list of 108 candidates selected provisionally for the position of Assistant Family Planning Officer by issuing memо dated 02.01.2024.

35The Controller of Examinations (Non-cadre) of PSC, by memo dated 16.01.2024 informed the Respondent No. 1, Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare that the PSC had prepared and maintained a panel/waiting list of successful candidates. Paragraph 5 of

Page 4

the said memorandum explicitly stipulated that, in the event of nonjoining by any selected candidate, and upon receipt of a requisition from the Respondent No. 1, the Ministry, notifying the PSC of such nonjoining, the PSC could proceed to select candidates from the panel/waiting list.

36The Respondent No. 1, the Ministry, confirmed by issuing a memo dated 03.11. 2024 to the Respondent No. 2, PSC that only 63 out of the 108 recommended candidates had taken up their respective positions and the said memo further confirmed that 81 positions for the post of Assistant Family Planning Officer remained vacant; and also instructed the Respondent No. 2, BPSC, to take the necessary measures to recommend the successful candidates from the panel/waiting list for appointment to the said vacant posts. Notwithstanding the existence of a duly maintained panel/waiting list, the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the PSC has, till date, failed to issue any subsequent list of selected candidates from the said panel/waiting list.

37The petitioners issued a Notice Demanding Justice dated 15.01.2025 upon the Respondents through their lawyers requesting them for taking necessary actions to resolve the grievance raised by them. However, no response has been made thereto till date.

38Being aggrieved thereby and there having no other alternative and equally efficacious remedy available, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition and obtained the present Rule.

Page 5

39Learned Advocate Mr. Sheikh Mohammad Morshed with Learned Advocate Mr. Md. Anisul Hassan, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that, the failure of Respondent No. 2 to act upon the requisition and instructions of Respondent No. 1, requiring the fulfilment of 81 vacant positions from the panel/waiting list maintained by Respondent No. 2 is unlawful, arbitrary, and tainted with mala fide and therefore is liable to be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Consequently, the Respondents are liable to be directed to select the Petitioners from the said panel or waiting list, subject to their eligibility therein.

40Learned Advocate further submits that, the Respondent No. 2's communication, annexed hereto as Annexure- C, explicitly stated that vacancies arising from the non-joining of selected candidates would be filled up from the panel/waiting list. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1, through Annexure- D, confirmed the existence of 81 vacant positions for the post of Assistant Family Planning Officer. Based on these representations, the Petitioners reasonably developed a legitimate expectation that, should their names appear in the panel/waiting list, they would be selected for the said post. The failure of the Respondents to act in accordance with this assurance constitutes a breach of the Petitioners' legitimate expectation, and therefore, necessary directions are needed to be passed by the Hon'ble Court in order to uphold justice and fairness.

41On the other hand, learned Advocate Ms. Rumana Hoque entered appearance on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, namely, the Bangladesh

Page 6

Public Service Commission (PSC). Initially, she contested the Rule by filing an affidavit-in-opposition dated 18.02.2026, wherein it was contended, inter alia, that the PSC had acted strictly in accordance with the requisition made by the Government and the specific directions contained therein. It was, therefore, asserted that the PSC had neither exceeded its lawful authority nor acted in any manner contrary to the applicable rules and regulations.

42However, at the time of hearing of the Rule, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 2 made a candid and significant submission by filing a supplementary affidavit dated 30.07.2026. In the said supplementary affidavit, it has been disclosed that the Respondent No. 2, by a resolution adopted on 23.05.2026 in its 7th Special Meeting of 2026, resolved to make recommendations against the 45 vacant posts from amongst the candidates included in the panel/waiting list, who had successfully passed the viva voce examination for the post of Assistant Family Planning Officer (10th Grade) pursuant to the circular dated 27.04.2022.

43The learned Advocate, however, submitted that the PSC is presently unable to implement the aforesaid resolution on account of the expiry of the one year validity period of the panel/waiting list, as stipulated in the circular dated 27.04.2022.

44Learned Advocate Mr. Md. Faruk Hossein, entered appearance on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 without filing any affidavit in opposition and submitted that as per letter dated 03.11.2024 issued by the Health

Page 7

Education and family Welfare Division, the Ministry requested the Bangladesh Public Service Commission i. e. respondent no. 2, for taking necessary steps of recommendation from the waiting list/panel. If the office of the respondent No. 2 recommended or published the waiting list/Panel, then the respondent no. 1, is ready to give appointment to the candidates.

45We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the writ petition, affidavit in opposition, supplementary thereto and the documents annexed therewith.

46It is evident from Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2 on 30.07.2026 that during pendency of the writ petition the Respondent No. 2 has finally come to a decision to make recommendation for the 45 vacant posts from the panel/waiting list of the participants who passed the viva voce examination for the post of Assistant Family Planning Officer (10th Grade) pursuant to the circular dated 27.04.2022. The explanation given by the PSC in not making the recommendation earlier from the panel/waiting list has also been given in that meeting. Relevant part of the resolution dated 23.05.2026 is quoted herein under:

“ . .

. . . , , . -## $% & ' ( ' "*+ ,

-$ ' " ( ' /01) 3 # Ae¤−j¡¢ca 4 '( '

556 3 7 8 6 9: 4 , ; '$ < + =

> ? @$,? A 0+ @: Ae¤−l¡d +? (*7< -8)। L¢jne

Page 8

p¢Qh¡m−ul . . # $% & ' ( ' "; '

< B $< + = >C > D E F -$

; G4D "*+ , -$ ' " ( ' /01) 3 ( )6

9: 4 ' 8 (HI ) 6 9: 4 # ' . *.3*, $$- 1 +

E >C ?? ' $ *J K /' ' # ' . *.3*.

$$- 1 + p¤f¡¢l−nl L¡kÑH²j 0+ ?; ' < /B $< +

p¤f¡¢l−nl / $ p¤−k¡N /$F-' ' ' $ ; ' AM N" ' ' * O ,

-/ @ $ $ +? (*7< – )”।

“ ' . *.3*. /P QM 9: 4 , R D S¡¢l

+? $ (*7< – )। # ' . *.3*. + "*+ , -$

' ” ( ' /01) 3 86 4 , R D S¡¢l +?N

(*7< – )। /' I 8 6 9: 4 , 86 4 # ' . *.3*. /P

E TU' O

9: 4 XY K = W $? Z /'[ fl£r¡u Eš£ZÑ fË¡bÑ£−cl B $

; ' < + = '( ' $ ? < > ? @$,? *J K

0+ @: /O? \ $ j−q¡cu ¢hou¢V ' $ pi¡u EfØq¡f−el ¢e−cÑne¡

fËc¡e L−le”z

47It is therefore evident that the grievance of the petitioners had arisen as a result of the internal mismanagement/miscommunication of the authority for which the petitioners did not have any role to play. However, the authority now has come up with the decision to reconcile the dispute but the technical problem remains that the validity of one year period of the waiting list has expired by now. As such the PSC is unable to implement the decision due to the stipulation made in the circular.

Page 9

48The extract of resolution is quoted below:

“ ;G,$ -$ ; G4D

“*+ , -$ ' ” ( ' /01) 4 XY K ]< ]

> /'? 4 < N / *'? ; U K + ? ? B $

< + = G / $ = T /$F। I 6 $ $%

8/ ? /> ^ TU' 0+ _ ? *J K `+,

+?”।

49It is, therefore, apparent that the impediment in implementing the resolution dated 23.05.2026 does not arise from any finding by the PSC that the candidates are ineligible or that the vacant posts cannot be filled from the said panel/waiting list. Rather, the only impediment identified by the Respondent No. 2 is the expiry of the stipulated one year validity period. The subsequent resolution of the PSC, coupled with the candid admission made before this Court, therefore, demonstrates that the issue has ultimately narrowed down to the legal effect of the expiry of the validity period of the panel/waiting list and whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the same constitutes as a bar to giving effect to the resolution already adopted by the PSC.

50In view of the facts and circumstances we think that ends of justice would be met if the expiry of the said period is condoned for the limited purpose of implementing the aforesaid resolution.

Accordingly, the expiry of the said validity period is hereby

51condoned/waived for the aforesaid purpose, and the Respondent No. 2, Bangladesh Public Service Commission, is directed to take necessary steps to give effect to its resolution dated 23.05.2026 by giving recommendations against the 45 vacant posts of Assistant Family

Page 10

Planning Officer (10th Grade) from amongst the candidates included in the panel/waiting list prepared pursuant to the circular dated 27.04.2022 within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. The Respondent No. 2 shall consider recommending the petitioners of this writ petition if they are found to be in the said waiting list.

With the aforesaid direction the Rule is disposed of.

However, there will be no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this judgment and order be communicated to the

52concerned authorities at once. Justice Sashanka Shekhar Sarkar, J: Farida B.o I agree