High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction
Md. Asaduzzaman v The Government of Bangladesh and others
Writ Petition 11839/2017 · Decided 13 July 2026
The petitioner applied for the post of Trainee Recruit Constable following a 2017 advertisement, passed the tests and was primarily selected, but was not issued an appointment letter because of an adverse police verification report. He claimed that the criminal case cited in the report was false and had been disposed of, and that his requests for re-verification were ignored. The respondents said a criminal case was pending against him at the time of verification. The High Court Division found that police verification had to be completed by 25 May 2017, the final select list was sent on 26 May 2017, and the case was withdrawn only on 28 May 2017, so it was pending at the relevant time. Under the advertisement, a satisfactory police verification report was a condition precedent to final selection, and a Police Headquarters memo treated candidates with pending criminal cases as ineligible. The vacancies had been filled from the waiting list, so no post remained. The Rule was discharged.
- Q1
Whether the respondents acted unlawfully in not issuing an appointment letter as Trainee Recruit Constable to a candidate excluded on an adverse police verification report.
- Q2
Whether a criminal case pending at the time of police verification, later withdrawn, entitled the candidate to re-verification and appointment.
- Where a satisfactory police verification report is a condition precedent to final selection under the recruitment advertisement, a candidate whose report was not satisfactory is rightly excluded from the final select list.
- A police verification report that correctly reflected a criminal case pending against the candidate at the relevant time suffers from no illegality or misrepresentation, even though the case was later withdrawn.
- The respondents acted in accordance with the applicable rules and Police Headquarters instructions treating a candidate with a pending criminal case as ineligible for appointment.
- Once the vacancies had been filled from the waiting list and the select list had attained finality, the respondents had no scope to reconsider the candidature or issue an appointment letter on a later re-verification request.
Since a satisfactory police verification report was a condition precedent for final selection under the terms of the recruitment advertisement, the petitioner was rightly excluded from the final select list.
In the court’s own words.
Writ Petition 11839/2017, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 9 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
Writ Petition No. 11839 of 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
An application under Article 102 of the Constitution
of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
And
IN THE MATTER OF:
Md. Asaduzzaman
—-Petitioner.
-Versus-
The Government of Bangladesh represented by the
Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh
Secretariat, Raman, Dhaka and others
—-Respondents.
Mr. Md. Mostafizur Rahman, Advocate
—-For the Petitioner.
Mr. Nazmul Hasan Chowdhury, AAG
—-For the Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Justice Md. Iqbal Kabir
And
Mr. Justice S. M. Saiful Islam
Heard on: 29.06.2026.
Date of Judgment: 13.07.2026.
S. M. Saiful Islam, J:
1On an application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, a Rule Nisi was issued in the following terms:
2“Let a Rule Nisi be issued calling upon the
3respondents to show cause as to why inaction and non-
4issuance of necessary appointment letter favoring the
petitioner should not be declared illegal and why a
5direction should not be given upon the Respondent to that
6effect and the acts of the respondents should not be
7declared and is of no legal effect and / or pass such other
8or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit
9and proper.”
10Facts stated in the writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner is a permanent citizen and resident of Bangladesh. He passed the SSC examination in 2015. The respondents published an advertisement in the ‘Daily Ittefaq’ dated 10.03.2017 under the signature of respondent No. 5, inviting applications for recruitment to the post of ‘Trainee Recruit Constable.’ Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner duly applied for the post and appeared in the requisite examinations and tests. He successfully passed all the examinations and tests conducted as part of the recruitment process. However, although appointment letter was issued to all other successful candidates, no appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that his appointment letter had not been issued on the basis of an adverse police verification report.
11According to the petitioner, some ill motivated persons, out of grudge and enmity, filed CR Case No. 284/C/2016 Shajahanpur, before the Senior Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Bogra, against the petitioner’s father and others which was found to be false upon police inquiry. Thereafter, the complainant filed a ‘Naraji’ petition against the inquiry report which was subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application to the office of the respondent No. 5 seeking re- Mossaddek/BO
verification and issuance of his appointment letter. Upon receipt of the said application, respondent No. 5 forwarded the same to respondent No. 4 vide Memo No. 44.01.0000. 028.04.003 (Aungsho). 17-5596, dated 02.07.2017, requesting him to enquire into the matter on humanitarian ground and to arrange for re-verification.
12Although the respondent No. 4 received the same communication, no effective steps were taken and no decision was communicated to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted another application directly to respondent No. 4 on 25.07.2017, again requesting re-verification and issuance of his appointment letter, but got no response. The petitioner thereafter served a demand for justice notice upon the respondents requesting to redress his grievance, but the respondents failed to response. Finding no other equally efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and obtained the Rule.
13Mr. Md. Mostafizur Rahman, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner successfully passed in all tests and examinations conducted in connection of the recruitment process for the post of trainee recruit constable and, as such, is legally entitled to be appointed to the said post. He contends that the respondents unlawfully refrained from issuing an appointment letter to the petitioner solely on the basis of a police verification report with which the petitioner had no connection.
14He further submits that the criminal case referred to in the verification report had been filed against the petitioner’s father and others out of family enmity and was ultimately found to be false upon inquiry. He also submits that the respondents’ failure to issue the appointment letter to Mossaddek/BO
the petitioner is arbitrary, without lawful authority and amounts to a denial of his constitutional rights. Such action and inaction, according to him, is violative of the Articles 27, 31 and 46 of the Constitution. On these grounds, the learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for making the Rule absolute.
15Conversely, Mr. Najmul Hasan Chowudhury, the learned Assistant Attorney General, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 5, by filing an affidavit-in-opposition, submits that, the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has no cause of action to invoke writ jurisdiction. He contends that at the time of police verification, the Petition Case No. 284/C/16 corresponding to Shajahanpur P.S. Case No. 8 dated 22/11/16 U/S 114/ 143/ 341/ 447/ 323/ 325/ 326/ 307/ 379/ 506/ 36 of the Penal Code, was pending for trial against the petitioner before learned Senior Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Bogra. He further submits that according to Regulation 750 of Police Regulations Bengal, 1943 (PRB), if upon verification, the antecedents of a candidate is found to be unsatisfactory and any statement made by the candidate is found to be false, his name is to be struck off the select list . Accordingly, the petitioner was found unfit for appointment to the post.
16He further submits that if the petitioner’s case is allowed, the recruitment policy adopted by the authority would be adversely affected, as the same arrangements could not applied to all by the Police Headquarters. He contends that the candidates whose applications were previously cancelled due to unsuccessful police verification may also raise new claim if the petition is allowed. He further submits that the petitioner has already exceeded the prescribed maximum age limit of 20 years as stipulated in the Mossaddek/BO
Police Code and the recruitment advertisement, and therefore, may no longer possess the physical fitness required to successfully undergo the rigorous basic training prescribed for the Trainee Recruit Constable. On the aforesaid grounds, learned Assistant Attorney General prays for discharge of the Rule.
17We have heard the learned Advocates of both sides, perused the application and affidavit in opposition and the Annexures thereto.
18Admittedly, the petitioner applied for the post of Trainee Recruit Constable (TRC) and he was selected primarily. However, he was ultimately not selected for appointment on the basis of an adverse police verification report. It is also an admitted fact that, at the time of the police verification, a criminal case was pending against the petitioner. Annexure- ‘E’ to the writ petition reveals that the petitioner submitted an application dated 29.06.2017 to A.I.G.P. (Recruitment and Career Planning), stating, inter alia, as follows:
“BwZg‡a¨ Avgvi wf. Avi. wi‡cv‡U© ‡KvU© wcwUkb gvgjv 284wm/16
19†`LvBqv Avgvi weiæ‡× wi‡cvU© †`b| Avwg Bb-PvR© Awdmvi cywjk jvBb
20e¸ovi m‡½ †hvMv‡hvM Kwi‡j †m †Kv‡U©i gvgjvi Lvjv‡mi KvMR wb‡q Avm‡Z
21e‡j| Avwg 25/5/17 Zvwi‡L Avgvi weiæ‡× `v‡qiK…Z gvgjv LvwiR nq| Hw`b
22†KvU© nB‡Z Rv‡e`v bKj bv cvIqvq c‡ii 2 w`b miKvix mvßvwnK QzwU _vKvq
2328/5/17 Bs Zvwi‡L Rv‡e`v cvBqv Bb-PvR© Awdmv‡ii wbKU †M‡j Avgv‡K
24e‡j wf.Avi. †`Iqv n‡q‡Rz''
25Although the petitioner asserted that the criminal case against him had been dismissed on 25.05.2017, Annexure- L reveals that the case was, in fact, withdrawn upon a petition filed on 28.05.2017. Therefore, the petitioner’s assertion that the case against him had been dismissed on Mossaddek/BO
25.05.2017 does not appear to be correct. A perusal of Annexure- C, annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition, further reveals that the final list of selected candidates was prepared on 26.05.2017, when the criminal case against the petitioner was still pending. It thus appears that the police verification report correctly reflected the petitioner’s status at the relevant time and cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or misrepresentation. Furthermore, a perusal of the advertisement for recruitment (Annexure-D), shows that a satisfactory police verification report was condition precedent for final selection. Clause 5 (kha) of the selection procedure contained in the said advertisement provides as follows:
26“ 5|
L| cywjk ‡fwiwd‡Kk‡b m‡šÍvlRbK I ¯^v¯’¨ cixÿvq †hvM¨ we‡ewPZ
27n‡j cÖwkÿ‡Yi Rb¨ cÖv_wgK fv‡e g‡bvbxZ Kiv n‡e| D‡jøL¨, cywjk
28†fwiwd‡Kkb di‡g †Kvb Z_¨ †Mvcb A_ev wg_¨v Z_¨ cÖ`vb Kiv n‡j PzovšÍ
29cÖwkÿ‡Zi Rb¨ g‡bvbqb Kiv n‡e bv|Ó
30As already observed, at the time the police verification was conducted, a criminal case was pending against the petitioner. Consequently, the police verification report could not be regarded as satisfactory. Since a satisfactory police verification report was a condition precedent for final selection under the terms of the recruitment advertisement, the petitioner was rightly excluded from the final select list.
31A perusal of Annexure- ‘E’ and ‘F’ reveals that, upon receiving the petitioner’s application dated 29.06.2017, A.I.G.P. (Recruitment and Career Planning), respondent No. 5, forwarded the same vide Memo No. 44.01.0000.028.04.003 (Aungsho). 17-5596 dated 02.07.2017 to respondent No.4 the Superintendent of Police, Bogra requesting him to look into the Mossaddek/BO
matter. A further perusal of Annexure-C, annexed to the affidavit-inopposition, reveals that the respondent no. 4 replied to respondent No.5 by Memo No. 2169/RO dated 06.07.2017 explaining the matter as follows:
“ Dc‡iv³ welq I m~‡Î D‡jøwLZ pÈ¡lLl f¢lfË¢ra S¡e¡e¡ k¡µR
32®k, j¡QÑ/2017 ¢MËx j¡p h…s¡ ®Sm¡u ®VÊC¢e ¢lœ¤²V LeØVhm (¢VBl¢p) fc
33S®~eL ®j¡x Bp¡c¤‹¡j¡e, ¢fa¡- ®j¡x j¢aEl lqj¡e, j¡a¡- ®j¡p¡x Bpj¡
34®hNj, NË¡j-Q¡‰¤Cl, ®f¡x- n¡hl¦m, b¡e¡- n¡S¡q¡ef¤l, ®Sm¡-h…s¡L
35fË¡b¢jLi¡h ¢ehÑ¡¢Qa Ll¡ quz fË¡b¢jLi¡h ¢ehÑ¡¢Qa fË¡b£Ñcl f¤¢mn
36®i¢l¢gLne 25/05/2017 ¢MËx a¡¢lMl jdÉ pÇfæ Ll¡l SeÉ f¤¢mn
37®qXL¡u¡VÑ¡pÑ, Y¡L¡l ¢ecÑne¡l ®fË¢ra fË¡b¢jLi¡h ¢ehÑ¡¢Qa fË¡b£Ñcl f¤¢mn
38®i¢l¢gLne 15/05/2017 ¢MËx a¡¢lMl jdÉ pÇf®æl SeÉ a¡cl ¢iBl…¢m
39Na 22/04/2017 ¢MËx a¡¢lM ®Sm¡ ¢hno n¡M¡, h…s¡u ®fËlZ Ll¡ quz ®Sm¡
40¢hno n¡M¡, h…s¡l pÈ¡lL ew- 3106/01-2017(2), a¡¢lM- 25/04/2017 ¢MËx
41j§m h¢ZÑa fË¡b£Ñl ¢iBl¢V ac¿¹l SeÉ A¢gp¡l-Ce-Q¡SÑ, n¡S¡q¡ef¤l b¡e¡,
42h…s¡ hl¡hl ®fËlZ Ll¡ quz A¢gp¡l-Ce-Q¡SÑ, n¡S¡q¡ef¤l b¡e¡, h…s¡
43Eõ¢Ma ¢iBl¢V ac¿¹f§hÑL fË¢ahce c¡¢Mm Ll¡l SeÉ Se¡h ®j¡x Bë¤m
44q¡¢Lj, f¤¢mn f¢lcnÑL (ac¿¹), n¡S¡q¡ef¤l b¡e¡, h…s¡L ¢ecÑn fËc¡e Llez
45¢a¢e Eš² ¢iBl¢V fË¡ç qu fË¡b£Ñl ¢i ®l¡ml 1-11 Hhw 13-15 ew Lm¡j
46fË¡b£Ñ LaѪL fËcš abÉ¡¢c p¢WL f¡e ¢L¿º 12 ew Lm¡jl abÉ p¢WL f¡e¢ez fË¡b£Ñ
47¢i ®l¡ml 12 ew Lm¡j EõM Lle a¡l ¢hl¦Ü ®L¡VÑ ®j¡LŸj¡ ew- 284
48¢p/16 (n¡S¡) ¢h‘ ¢p¢eul S¤¢X¢nu¡m jÉ¡¢SØVÊV Bc¡ma- 3, h…s¡ qa
49AhÉ¡q¢a ®fuRez ¢L¿º ¢iBl ac¿¹L¡l£ A¢gp¡l fË¢ahce EõM Lle
50®j¡LŸj¡ ew- 284 ¢p/16 (n¡S¡) n¡S¡q¡ef¤l b¡e¡ f¤¢mn ac¿¹ Ll h¢ZÑa
51®j¡LŸj¡u fË¡b£Ñpq AeÉ¡eÉ ¢hh¡c£cl ¢hl¦Ü h¡c£l B¢ea A¢ik¡Nl ®L¡e
52paÉa¡ e¡ f¡Ju¡u n¡S¡q¡ef¤l b¡e¡, h…s¡l pÈ¡lL ew- 235, a¡¢lM-
5318/01/2017 ¢MËx ®j¡a¡hL ®j¡LŸj¡ qa AhÉ¡q¢al SeÉ ac¿¹ fË¢ahce ¢h‘
54Bc¡ma c¡¢Mm Llez Eõ¢Ma j¡jm¡l h¡c£ Eš² fË¢ahcel Efl Ae¡ÙÛ¡
55‘¡fe Ll ¢h‘ Bc¡ma e¡l¡S£ c¡¢Mm Llez k¡ BN¡j£ 09/07/2017 ¢MËx
56öe¡e£l SeÉ ¢ce d¡kÑ luRz Eõ¢Ma ac¿¹ fË¢ahcel Bm¡L fË¡b£Ñl ¢hl¦Ü
57¢h‘ Bc¡ma ®g±Sc¡l£ j¡jm¡ ¢hQ¡l¡d£e b¡L¡l L¡lZ A¢gp¡l-Ce-Q¡SÑ,
58n¡S¡q¡ef¤l b¡e¡, h…s¡ ¢i ®l¡ml 19 ew Lm¡j fË¡b£Ñ ""¢eu¡Nk¡NÉ eq'' jjÑ
59EõM Ll ¢iBl¢V ®Sm¡ ¢hno n¡M¡, h…s¡u ®fËlZ Llez f¤¢mn Mossaddek/BO
®qXL¡u¡VÑ¡pÑ, Y¡L¡l pÈ¡lL ew- BlHäHj(¢l)/11-2006/882(115), a¡¢lM-
6017/12/2007 ¢MËx Hl ¢ecÑne¡l Bm¡L ¢iBl ac¿¹L¡m£e pju fË¡b£Ñl
61¢hl¦Ü ¢h‘ Bc¡ma ®g±Sc¡l£ j¡jm¡ ¢hQ¡l¡d£e b¡L¡u h¢ZÑa fË¡b£Ñ ""¢eu¡N
62Ak¡NÉ'' jjÑ Na ¢ejÀü¡rlL¡l£ ja¡ja fËc¡e Llez j¡QÑ/2017 ¢MËx j¡p
63h…s¡ ®Sm¡u ®VÊC¢e ¢lœ¤²V LeØVhm (¢VBl¢p) fc fË¡b¢jLi¡h ¢ehÑ¡¢Qa
64fË¡b£Ñcl ¢iBl pÇfæl fl p¡d¡lZ ®L¡V¡u h¢Z~a fË¡b£Ñpq ®j¡V 03 (¢ae) Se
65fË¡b£Ñ ¢eu¡N Ak¡NÉ qJu¡u ®Sm¡l Afrj¡e a¡¢mL¡ qa 03 (¢ae) Se
66fË¡b£ÑL Q¨s¡¿¹i¡h je¡¢ea Ll Aœ¡¢gp pÈ¡lL ew- 1670/BlJ, a¡¢lM-
6726/05/2017 ¢MËx j§m e¡jl Q¨s¡¿¹ a¡¢mL¡ f¤¢mn ®qXL¡u¡VÑ¡pÑ, XvKvq †cÖiY
68Kiv nqz''
69Thus it appears from the said communication that, in accordance with the directions issued by the Police Headquarters, the police verification of the primarily selected candidates was required to be completed within 25.05.2017. Accordingly, the final list of selected candidates was forwarded to the Police Headquarters on 26.5.2017. As already noted, the criminal case against the petitioner was withdrawn only on 28.05.2017. Therefore, as on 25.05.2017, the criminal case was admittedly pending against the petitioner. It further appears that, under Memo No. Avi GÛ Gg (wi)/ 11-2006/882(115) dated 17.12.2007, issued by the police Headquarters, any candidates against whom a criminal case was pending was to be treated as “ineligible for appointment.” In view of the said policy, the respondents acted in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions governing the recruitment process.
70It also appears that three candidates, including the petitioner were disqualified at the stage of final selection on account of adverse police verification reports. Consequently, three candidates from waiting list were appointed in their place. As a result, all the advertised vacancies were filled Mossaddek/BO
up and no vacant post remained against which the petitioner could subsequently be appointed. Although, the petitioner applied for reverification on 29.06.2017, by that time, the recruitment process had already been completed and the select list had attained finality. In such circumstances, the respondents had no further scope to reconsider the petitioner’s candidature or issue him an appointment letter.
71In view of the facts, circumstances, and discussions made above, we are of the view that the Rule Nisi is devoid of merit and is liable to be discharged.
72In the result, the Rule Nisi is discharged without any order as to costs.
73Communicate this judgment forthwith. Md. Iqbal Kabir, J:
I agree.
74Mossaddek/BO
Related summaries.
From the record to your case.
Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.
- Supreme Court practice in BangladeshSlips, mentioning, cause lists and appearances→
- Case JourneysHow a case moves through the courts, step by step→
- Limitation and appeal deadline calculatorKnow your last day to file→
- Curative petitions in BangladeshFinality, article 104 and the case for reform→
- Constitution guideEvery article and amendment, animated→
- Bangladesh legal glossaryBangla and English legal terms, explained→
