257 LGED Engineers Face Fresh Scrutiny Over Seniority, Regularisation

PSC recommendation absent, service continuity questioned, qualifications of five disputed; yet all 257 included in 2026 draft seniority list

The careers of 257 engineers of the Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) are once again at the centre of a contentious administrative dispute, with questions being raised over how they were transferred from development projects to permanent revenue-funded posts—and subsequently granted seniority, promotions and higher responsibilities.

The engineers were moved to revenue-funded Assistant Engineer posts in 2010, 2011 and 2013. But a government investigation later found that several mandatory procedures may not have been followed.

Among the key findings were the absence of recommendations from the Bangladesh Public Service Commission (PSC), lack of continuity of service in the case of 36 engineers, and questions over the prescribed educational qualifications of five others.

The investigation also found that, without proper regularisation, there was no legal basis for counting their seniority. It further questioned the legality of granting them selection grades and subsequent promotions.

Yet, despite these findings, the Local Government Division included all 257 engineers in a draft seniority list issued on April 21, 2026.

That has brought the long-running dispute back into focus.

The central question is straightforward: if the government's own investigation identified serious procedural and legal deficiencies, on what basis are the 257 engineers being considered for seniority once again?

A dispute dating back more than a decade

The controversy stems from the transfer of project-based engineers into LGED's permanent revenue structure.

According to government records, 131 engineers were transferred in 2010, 109 in 2011 and 17 in 2013 from various development projects to revenue-funded Assistant Engineer posts.

The subsequent regularisation of their service, however, became contentious.

An investigation by the Ministry of Public Administration found that the necessary procedures for such transfers had not been properly followed. In particular, the required approval process and the PSC's recommendation were reportedly absent.

The issue gained further significance when the Local Government Division sought the Public Administration Ministry's opinion on the engineers' seniority.

In a written opinion issued on October 26, 2022, the ministry's Regulation Wing said that because Assistant Engineer is a Grade 9 post, the PSC's advice was required for regularisation.

The ministry also advised that the seniority of the 257 engineers should be determined only after establishing whether the PSC's recommendation and other required formalities had been completed.

On January 12, 2023, the Local Government Division subsequently instructed the LGED chief engineer to take necessary action.

Despite this, the same 257 engineers appeared in the draft seniority list issued in April this year.

The seniority question

At the heart of the dispute is a basic question of administrative law: when does an employee's seniority legally begin?

Under the government's Regularisation and Seniority Determination Rules, 2005, seniority of an employee regularised under the rules is generally counted from the date of regularisation.

But documents related to the investigation indicate that 212 of the 257 engineers had not been properly regularised in the revenue structure.

The investigation committee therefore concluded that there was no scope to count their seniority without valid regularisation.

This creates a direct contradiction: the engineers have been placed on the draft seniority list even though questions remain over the legal validity of the very service status on which that seniority would depend.

36 engineers and the continuity issue

The investigation also identified another significant problem. Of the 257 engineers, 36 reportedly did not have continuity of service during the relevant period.

Continuity of service is an important condition for regularisation under the applicable rules.

The investigation committee observed that the rules governing the transfer and regularisation of project personnel had to be followed. It also questioned the procedure through which the engineers were simultaneously placed in revenue-funded Assistant Engineer posts and regularised.

If the service records of some of the engineers were not continuous, the question arises as to whether they met the basic conditions for regularisation in the first place.

Qualifications of five engineers questioned

The investigation also raised concerns over the educational qualifications of five engineers.

For the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), the prescribed qualification is a bachelor's degree in civil engineering.

According to information cited in the investigation-related documents, three of the five engineers hold BSc degrees in Agricultural Engineering and two hold BSc degrees in Mechanical Engineering.

The investigation reportedly questioned whether these qualifications met the requirements for the civil engineering posts to which they were appointed.

The issue is significant because any defect at the recruitment stage could have implications for subsequent regularisation, seniority and promotion.

Promotions before seniority was settled

The controversy did not stop at regularisation. The investigation committee also questioned the fact that the engineers were promoted before their positions had been properly established in an approved seniority list.

The report reportedly observed that such promotions could adversely affect engineers recruited through the PSC after 2008, potentially delaying their own career progression.

What began as a dispute over project appointments has therefore evolved into a broader contest over seniority, promotion and career rights within LGED.

180 engineers given additional charge

The issue has taken another turn this year. Under the government's Policy on Assignment of Additional Charge to Vacant Posts, 2023, questions have arisen over whether project-based officials can be assigned additional charge in revenue-funded posts before their regularisation is complete.

Despite this, 180 of the 257 engineers were reportedly given additional charge as Executive Engineers in April and May 2026.

The move has prompted further questions about whether officials whose regularisation remains disputed can legally exercise responsibilities attached to higher revenue-funded posts.

Court proceedings complicate the picture

The dispute has also moved through the courts. Following writ proceedings in 2024, the High Court directed the Ministry of Public Administration to investigate the matter. The resulting report was submitted to the court on July 3, 2025. But the legal history is not one-sided.

According to published reports, an earlier decision of the Administrative Tribunal had upheld the promotions of the 257 engineers and recognised the 2015 seniority list.

The result is a complicated legal landscape: an earlier tribunal ruling supporting the engineers' claims exists alongside subsequent findings by a government investigation committee that identified serious procedural irregularities.

The final outcome will therefore depend on how the relevant court orders, government rules, investigation findings and PSC-related requirements are reconciled.

Now, a bid for retrospective regularisation

With the controversy deepening, there has been discussion of retrospective regularisation of the engineers. But that proposal raises another legal hurdle.

The investigation committee reportedly found that retrospective regularisation could not simply be used to confer seniority and other benefits from an earlier date. Rather, the required formalities would have to be completed before a valid regularisation order could be issued.

This raises a further question:

If the PSC's opinion is obtained now, can it retrospectively validate promotions and seniority benefits that were granted years earlier?

That is likely to be one of the most consequential issues in resolving the dispute.

Process is still under way: Ministry

The Local Government Division says the matter has not yet been finalised.

Officials said the concerned parties have been heard and that the authorities are examining the matter in accordance with the applicable rules.

Dr Abu Nasr Mohammad Abdullah, convener of the committee formed to review the seniority list, declined to comment.

A senior ministry official, however, said there was no question of favouring one side over another and that the process was being handled after considering the views of all stakeholders.

A section of regular LGED engineers disagrees. They argue that granting seniority and higher responsibilities to the 257 engineers could affect the promotion prospects of officials who entered the department through the PSC under the established recruitment process.

Beyond 257 engineers: A test of administrative accountability

The dispute over the 257 LGED engineers is ultimately about more than a seniority list. It raises broader questions about how development-project personnel enter the permanent government structure, the role of the PSC in recruitment and regularisation, the importance of uninterrupted service, prescribed academic qualifications, and the legal basis for subsequent promotions.

If the investigation findings are correct, the authorities must explain how engineers whose regularisation remains disputed could be included in a new seniority list.

But if their appointments and subsequent career progression are legally valid, the government must also explain how the investigation committee arrived at such serious objections.

Either way, the issue demands a transparent, rule-based resolution.

A clear decision based on the relevant court orders, investigation findings, government rules and PSC position is essential—not only for the 257 engineers, but also for hundreds of other LGED officials whose promotions and career progression may be affected.

The unresolved question

If regularisation was incomplete, the PSC's recommendation was absent, and questions remain over service continuity and qualifications, what is the legal basis for placing all 257 engineers on the seniority list?

That is the question the authorities now have to answer.