Md. Fazle Rabbi Mia Vs. Professor Aftab Uddian Ahmed and others (Hasan Foez Siddique, J.)

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

Hasan Foez Siddique, J.

And

Md. Jahangir Hossain, J.

Judgment

20.02.2012

 }

}

}

}

}

 Md. Fazle Rabbi Mia

…Petitioner.

Vs.

Professor Aftab Uddin Ahmed and others

…Respondents. 

National University Act (XXXVII of 1992) Sections 6 (Ta) 12,14,15,21,24,31,34 and 36 Constitution of Bangladesh ,1972

Articles 29(1), 102(2)(a)(i)

National University Service Statute Regulations 4, 95, 96, 97, 98 and 99.

The petitioner, a former senate member of the National University and a member of parliament, filed the instant writ petition by way of public interest litigation whereupon the Rule nisi was issued which was discha-rged. Then a member of parliament filed Review petition and a Rule was issued and eventually the rule was made absolute. All most all the added respondents prefered several Civil Petition for Leave to Appeals and their Lordships of the Appellate Division by their Judgment and order sent the matter to the present bench for disposal after setting aside judgment and order passed in the said Review petition.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned appointment of the National University under camouflage of the advertisement and all subsequent appointments made thereunder and prayed for a direction to cancel all appointments made from 17-11-2003 to 31.08.2004 and make fresh appo-intments observing the existing rules . It appears that from the date of appointment on 5.7.03 the Vice-Chancellor Prof. Aftab Uddin Ahmed till the date of his removal on 20-07-2005 in total 1222 Officers, Staffs and Teachers were appointed in the National University under camouflage of the advertisement and all subsequent appointments made thereunder are chall-enged in the instant writ petition.

It appears from the provision of section 6 (5), 14 (6), 24 (2) (M), 31 (4), 34 (7) and 36 of the National University Act, 1992 that it can create new posts and make appointm-ent in newly created posts after making arrange-ment of budget and registrar of the University will put the same before the Syndicate, who will consider it and take decision about the yearly financial state-ment. The money allocated in the budget shall be spent for such purpose for which the submission that there is no requirement of law for budgetary provision before creation of new posts is not acceptable. So before allocation of budget against newly created posts, there is no scope to appoint any one in newly created post. The appointments of 161 persons in one day and joining of those appointees on the same day and 131 persons on the next day are nothing but arbitrary exercise of administrative discretion and such appointments were tainted with fraud.

The respondent University in their affidavit-in-oppositions admitted that advertisement published in Daily Sangbad on 05.01.2004 was not proper advertisement. The appointments made on the basis of such improper advertis-ement are not legal appointments and the procedure adopted by the University suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. The University also admitted in the Affidavit-in-opposition that the employment notification shown to have been published in the Daily Independent was a fictitious one. High power enquiry committee enquired matters and found illegalities and irregularity in the process of appointments.

As per provision of regulation 99(3) of the National University Service Statute it is the obligation of the University to give advertis-ement for direct appointment and to follow the circulars regarding quota reservation which have not been followed in the impugned advertisement.

The National University has not followed the University Act and Statute. Since those laws have been enacted for the conduct of its affairs to avoid arbitrariness. The action complained of its arbitrary, irrational unre-asonable, the same is liable to be set aside in exercise of judicial review. Any appointment in the service of the public body without advertising to the posts the persons who were otherwise qualified for appointment for the posts were deprived of the opport-unity for being selected for the posts is violalive by Article 29 of the Constitution.

In this case the illegalities, irregularities, arbitrariness and abuse of power in the process of creating of posts, selection and appointments are so intermixed that it becomes impossible to sort out the right from wrong or vice versa.  It is the settle principle that the rules of natural justice cannot be put in a strait Jacket.

Applicability of these rules depends on the facts and circumstances relating to each particular situation. There is no force in the submission of the learned Advocates for the added respondents. Accordingly the High Court Division gave some directions on the National University to cancel all the appointment in reference to the advertise-ment, to prepare and approve an organog-ram, to start a fresh selection process for recruitment in the vacant/newly created posts etc. Hence, the rule is made absolute.

….(39, 48, 49, 51, 53, 62, 64, 67, 68, 87, 89 & 91)

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nandalal, reported in AIR 1987 S.C. page-251, State of Himachal Prodesh Vs. Suresh Kumer Verma reported in (1994) 2 S.C.C. page-204, Biswa Ranjan Saha and others Vs. Sushanta Kumar Duinda and others AIR 1996 S.C. page 2552, Indra Sawhney and others Vs. Union of India and others 1992 (3) S.C.C. page 212, Lord Lindlay, in General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland Vs. Overtaum, 1904 A.C. Page 515, Sharp Vs. Wakefield (1891 A.C. 173), Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mozdur Congress AIR 1991 S.C. page 101, State of Punjab Vs.  Gourdial Sing AIR 1980 S.C. page 319, Council of Civil Service Union (L.C.C.S.U). Vs. Minister for the Civil Service (1984) 31 ALL E.R. 935, S.G. Jaisinghaw Vs. Union of India AIR, 1967 S.C. page 1427, A. Umarani Vs. Registrar, Cooerative Societies, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 112, Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. V. U.T. Chandigarh,  (Para-36, SCC P-36-37), State of Haryana V. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118 (2006) 4 SCC 27, para-23), Ashwani Kumar V. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 (SC) 2833, Krishan Yadav and another Vs. State of Haryana and others AIR 1994 (SC) 2166, Mohinder Sain Garg. V. State of Punjab, (1991) 1 SCC 662, Union of India and others Vs. Chakradhar  reported in AIR 2002 (SC) 1119, ref.

Mr.Abdur Rob Chowdhury, Senior Advocate

                        —For the petitioner.

Dr. Kamal Hossain, Senior Advocate with

Mr. A.M. Amin Uddin, Advocates

—For the co-petitioner.

Mr. Rafiq-Ul Huq, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Khaer Ezaz Maswood and

Mr. A.Q.M. Shafiullah, Advocates

—For the added–respondent Nos. 283-297, 299-334, 336-405, 410, 411, 414, 417-521, 710-735, 736-878, 880-881, 886-907, 909, 911-913. 915 & 916.

Mr. Rokanuddin Mahmud, Senior Advocate

with

Mr. Mustafizur Rahman Khan, Advocates,

—For  the respondent Nos. 5-27,  29-110, 112-194, 196-457, 459-466, 576, 595, 596, 604, 632, 653,  701 and 917-922.

Mr. Zafar Ahmed, Advocate,

—For the respondent No. 2.

Ms. Fauzia Karim, Advocate,

—For the respondent No.4,

Mr. Md. Belayet Hossain, Advocate,

—For the respondent No. 883.

Mr. Mahbubey Alam, Attorney General, with

Mr. Biswojit Roy, Deputy Attorney General,

Ms. Amatul Karim, Asstt. Attorney General and

Mr. Sarup Kanti Dev, Asstt. Attorney General

—For respondent No. 3.

Judgment

Hasan Foez Siddique, J:

This Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned appointments evidenced in Annexure-A under the  camouflage of the advertisement “Annexure-B” and all subsequent appointments made thereunder shall not be declared to have been made without lawful authority and are of no legal effect and why a direction shall not be issued to cancel all appointments made from 17.11.2003 to 31.8.2004 and make fresh appointments if considered necessary after proper publication of the advertisement and maintaining the quota reservations under the existing rules.

  1. 2.          Earlier this Rule was discharged by a Division Bench of this Court on 22.8.2006. Thereafter, Mr. A.K.M. Mozammel Hoque local member of parliament filed Review Petition No.67 of 2010 and this Court by a judgment and order dated 23.8.2011 allowed the said review petition and set aside the judgment and order dated 22.8.2006 and made the Rule absolute. Thereafter, all most all the added respondents preferred Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 1738 of 2011, 1744 of 2011, 1747 of 2011, 2012 of 2011, 2039 of 2011, 2045 of 2011 and 2074 of 2011 in the Appellate Division and their Lordships of the Appellate Division by a judgment and order dated 01.12.2011 were pleased to set aside the judgment and order passed in Review Petition No.67 of 2010 as well as the judgment and order of the Writ Petition No.5125 of 2004 and sent the matter to this bench for disposal.
  2. 3.          Mr. Md. Fazle Rabbi Mia former senate member of the NationalUniversity and member of Parliament instituted the instant Writ Petition by way of public interest litigation alleging, inter alia, that the NationalUniversity (hereinafter referred as University) was established as StatutoryPublicUniversity under National University Act (hereinafter referred as Act). As a statutory body all it’s employees are public servant and all appointments in the said University are required to be made in accordance with the laws applicable to the public bodies. Apart from prescribed qualifications including age restrictions there is State Policy as enunciated in the various instructions issued for the Government and quota reservation and provision of National University Employees Service Statute No.6  (hereinafter referred as  Statute No.6) which provided that for direct appointment there  must be a public advertisement in addition to complying the quota reservations prescribed by the Government. Respondent No.1 (Prof. Aftab Ahmed now deceased) joined as Vice- Chancellor ( hereinafter referred as V.C.) on 05.07.2003. From 17.11.2003  to  04.01.2004 the V.C. appointed 348 persons without advertisement, without any selection committee and without maintaining quota system in exercising of power provided under Section 12(10) of the Act. Those appointments were made in violation of the national policy of maintaining quota and the absolute need for prior advertisement to afford equal opportunity mandated by law. A large number of appointments were made granting several advance increments thereby making them senior to previously appointed persons.  Such appointments were made in an arbitrary manner and immoral motives of private gains at public cost. Out of 348 persons appointed from 17.11.2003 to 04.1.2004,  11 officers and 5 staffs were appointed on 17.11.2003, 2 officers and one staff were appointed on 19.11.2003, 13 officers and 1 staff  were appointed on 02.12.2003, 55 staffs were appointed on 23.12.2003, 71 staffs were appointed on 24.12.2003 and 23 officers and 64 staffs were appointed on  04.01.2004. Sheikh Abdullah Al- Tarik, Mrs. Aysha Akther, Md. Abul Kalam Azad, Md. Mahmudur Rahman, A.K.M. Nurul Alam Talukder, Jakir Hossain Patwary, Md. Osman Ghani, Faruque Ahmed, Md. Bashir Hossain, Md. Rashidul Islam, Md. Safiul Alam,  Dil Raushan, Nurul Amin, Shahidul Nazmun Nahar and Mollah Masudul Haque were given three to five advance increments. Those increments were given at the time of their appointments. There was no advertisement. No interview was held . No appointment letters were sent to the individual by recognized system of communication. Except few, the appointees joined on the day of appointment or on the following day. It could only be happened if there is private arrangement of incentive and rewards not recognized by law or regular practice. A “sham” advertisement was published in “the Daily Sangbad” on 05.01.2004. In the said advertisement though 30 categories of posts were mentioned but there was no mentioned as to how many would be recruited from each category nor was it mentioned if there were any quota reservation for any group. There is no mentioning whether such appointments would be made on the regular or temporary basis. In some cases only  one designation was mentioned with other equivalent posts but the requisite qualifications and designation were not mentioned. It was a fared of a public advertisement made more to deceive then to inform or illuminate. The appointments were made prior to the publication of the advertisement. Those appointees were subsequently interviewed as departmental candidates and allowed to continue indefinitely. Those appointment having been made illegally, they cannot be regularized through backdoor denying proper and reasonable opportunity to other eligible candidates who were thus illegally shutout. 551 persons were recruited newly. All those appointments were made in violation of the mandatory rules and regulation.  For the ends of justice those appointments should be cancelled. Appointments were made in many posts which were not legally created. There was no budget for such new appointments. The news of those illegal appointments were widely published in different national news papers. Such appointments were made in colourable exercise of power which incurred expenditure more than taka one crore per month. The syndicate did not meet and approve the budget against the newly created posts. The appoint-ments were made most arbitrarily without following the connecting laws and regulations.
  3. 4.          After the order of remand, Mr. A.K.M. Mozammel Hoque, M.P. was impleaded as co-petitioner in the instant Rule. He submitted a supplementary affidavit stating, inter alia, that the procedures which are to be followed to appoint employees are no.1(1) allocation of budget, (2) approval of Prime Minister, (3) creation of posts, (4) approval of the syndicate (5) publication of the advertisement, (6) selection of the qualified candidates by the selection committee, (7) again approval of the syndicate and (8) letter of appointments to be posted. In the case of 1222 appointees the procedure as mentioned above were not followed. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimed that employment advertisement was published in the “Dainik Azkaler Khabar’ on 11.9.2004 and “ The Independent” on 15.09.2004 but the Managing Director of “the Independent” issuing  a letter addressing Mr. Reyhan Hossain Barister–at law informed that no such employment notice was published in the Independent on 15.9.2004. The University authority by a letter dated 08.5.2008 informed the Officer-in-Charge, Joydevpur Police Station, Gazipur that no such advertisement was published in the Independent on 15.9.2004 and the same was fake and collusive one. Accordingly Joydevpur P.S. case No.82 dated 16.4.2008 was started. After holding investing-ation, the police submitted charge sheet against some officials of the University under Section 420/466/467/468/471 and 109 of the Penal Code for their involvement in the forgery. The Bangladesh Press Institute, made an inquiry on the allegation of publication of the advertis-ement dated 15.9.2004 allegedly published in the daily Independent, and found that on that day no such advertisement was published in the daily Independent and informed the same by letters  dated 12.02.2007, 05.09.2007 and 02.08.2008. The Directorate of Archives and Libraries by two separate letters dated 27.8.2007 and 26.5.2008 said that no such advertisement was published in the Indepe-ndent on 15.9.2004 which clearly established that by practicing fraud and creating fake advertisement, the appointees managed to get appointments in their respective posts. The University Grant Commission also held an inquiry and found that no such advertisement for employment, at the instance of the University, was published in the Independent on 15.09.2004. It has been stated that no selection can be made when there is no advertisement. The minutes of the meeting of this selection committee dated 10.10.2004 is absolutely fraudulent. Another criminal case has been started for creation of such fraudulent and forged minutes which has been registered as Dhanmondi P.S. Case No.17(05)/09.  The said case has been charge sheeted under sections 467/468/471/109 of the Penal Code. It has further been stated that the Annexures 6, 6A, 6B, 6C and 6D the minutes of the meeting of post creating committee and Annexures-3, 6E, 9, 9A, 9B, 9C and 9D and the minutes of the syndicate are fabricated and forged. There was no post of Assistant Chief Medical Officer, in the budget of the concerned year. There was no allocation of fund for creation and appointments in new posts inasmuch as the same was mandatory requirement under the provision of section 6(ta), 26(niew) and 45(4) of the Act. The alleged minutes of 63rd meeting of the syndicate are forged and fabricated for which the University lodged G.D. No.1944 dated 25.3.2010 (Annexure-A-D). In the 63rd meeting the alleged new posts were shown to be approved under agenda No.15 but notice of the agenda of the said meeting dated 03.11.2003 (Annexure-B-1) revealed that there were only 11 agendas. No approval from the office of the Prime Minister was taken before creating and appointing in new posts thereby  the University violated the notification communicated under Memo No.51/110/2/0/320 (500) dated 15.10.1992. Over the matter the University Grant Commission (hereinafter referred as U.G.C.) held an inquiry and found the allegation true. No office copy of the interview cards are found in the office, no receipt and final statement for issuing and sending interview cards were issued and found in the University office. Annexures 14-A, 14-B, 16 and 16-B were fabricated documents. The U.G.C. inquiry report shows that there were irregularities in the process of appointments.
  4. 5.          The respondent No.1 Professor Aftab Ahmed (now deceased) filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 19.2.2005, respondent No.2 the University filed its first affidavit-in-Opposition on 27.6.2006. The University filed supplem-entary affidavit-in-opposition on 19.01.2012 and another supplementary affidavit-in-opposition on 31.01.2012. Respondent No.4 filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 29.1.2012, the respondent nos. 5-27, 29-110, 112-194, 196-457, 459-466, 576, 595, 596, 600, 604, 632, 653, 701 and 917-922 filed their first affidavits-in-opposition on 12.1.2012. They also filed two supplementary affidavits-in-opposition on 29.01.2012 and 06.2.2012. The respondent Nos. 283-297, 299-3334, 336-409 , 410, 411, 414, 472-521, 886—907. 909. 911-913 , 915  and 916 filed affidavit-in-opposition on 18.01.2012.  They also filed supplementary affidavit-in-opposition on 29.01.2012. The respondent Nos. 710-734, 736-878, 880-881 also filed affidavit-in-opposition. They also filed two sets of supplementary affidavit-in-opposition on 29.01.2012 and 30.01.2012. The respondent No.883 filed an  affidavit-in-opposition.
  5. 6.          In his affidavit-in-Opposition the then Vice- Chancellor, Professor Aftab Ahmed, inter alia, contended that the University as an autonomous body was established under National University Act, 1992. The appointm-ents and the service of the University are guided by its own law. The quota reservation has been maintained duly. The advertisement for regular appointments were duly published in the national dailies. According to Statute No. 6 the age limit of entry level is up to 32 years in case of officers and employees and 35 years in case of teachers. The Government earlier imposed an embargo on new appointment in the Government, semi- Government and autonomous body which was effective from October, 2001 to middle of the year 2003. For that reason all the appointment processes were stopped for a long period. The said embargo was withdrawn few days before joining of the respondent No.1. Entering into the office, he tried to run the activities of the University smoothly which demanded man power. Accordingly, for the betterment of the University he had to appoint employees on ad-hoc basis under the provision of section 12(10) of the  Act. Thereafter, advertisement was published in the several national dailies. Many persons who got appointments on ad-hoc  basis were appointed through competitive examin-ation. The quota system has been maintained properly. From 17.1.2003 to 4.1.2004, 349 persons were appointed out of them 96 were officers who were selected by the selection committee. From 5.2.2004 to 11.2.2004, 253 persons were also selected by the selection committee. Their appointments were approved by the syndicate of the University on 19.2.2004 . Statute 6 empowered the authority to grant increment/ increments to the employees in the beginning of his service . A few categories of officers were given increments considering their degree, expertise and job experience. It is not true that the increments were given randomly. The selection committee selected the competent candidates and those persons got appointments on regular basis. The advertise-ments were duly published in “The Dainik Sangbad” , “ The Banglabazar Patrika” and “ The News Today” and sufficient time was given to submit applications. There is no hard and fast rule of mentioning the number of required posts in advertisement. In absence of required number of any posts the advertisement would not be illegal. The report published in different newspaper regarding appointment are motivated and false. The number of institutions enrolled in the University are gradually increasing for which workload was increasing day by day. At the beginning, the University had to deal with 410 Colleges. At present, after increasing the number of colleges stands near about 1700. The man power of the NationalUniversity was not enough to deal with the matters. All appointments and budget have been approved by the Syndicate on 5.11.2003. Not a single appointment was colourable. The allegations brought in the writ petition is frivolous, vexatious and the same has been brought with malafide intention.
  6. 7.          The respondent No.2 the University in his affidavit-in-Opposition dated 27.6.2006, inter alia, contended that as per provision of Rule 97 of the Statute 6 the Post Creation Committee created 938 posts of officers and employees by a resolution dated 27.10.2003. 101 posts on 28.3.2004, 23 posts  on 17.7.2004, 48 posts  on 31.8.2004, 31 posts on 14.10.2004, 113 posts  on 09.02.2005 and 1 post was created by another resolution dated 16.3.2005, that is in total 1255 posts were created. The Treasurer was one of the members of the Post Creating Committee and the members of the Syndicate and person responsible for financial management of the University. The recommendation for creation of the post by the Posts Creation Committee is necessarily attached with implied financial sanction. The Syndicate in its 63rd meeting held on 05.11.2003 approved the recommendation for creation of 938 posts of officers and employees (Annexure-6E). Similarly, the Syndicate also approved the recommendation for creation of 97 posts in its 66th meeting on 30.3.2004, approved of 23 posts in its 69th meeting on 4.8.2004, 48 posts in its 70th   Meeting held on 20.9.2004, 31 posts in its 71st Meeting on 14.10.2004, 93 more posts in its 76th Meeting held on 17.2.2005. The University made public advertisement inviting applications for appointment in 30 posts of officers and employees which were published in the Daily News Paper on 05.01.2004. In response to the advertisement  thousands of people applied for various posts of  officers and employees. Three Selection Boards were constituted, one was for officer, one was for third class employees and rest one for 4th class employees as per provision of Rule 5(4) of the first statute of the University. As per provision of Rule 99(ka) and (kha) of the Statute 6, the Selection Committees were  formed. 3075 persons applied for various advertised posts of officers, some more thousands applied for class III posts and class IV posts.  The eligible candidates appeared before the respective Selection Boards. The selection board of the officers took interview of the candidates on 05.02.2004, 06.02.2004, 07.02.2004, 08.02.2004, 09.02.2004, 10.02.2004 and 11.02.2004 and prepared a list on 11.02.2004 selecting and recommending 205 candidates for appointment. The Selection Board for Class III employees took interview of 1786 eligible candidates on 05.02.2004, 06.02.2004, 07.02.2004, 08.02.2004, 09.02.2004 and 10.02.2004 and selected 469 candidates for appointment and accordingly recommended the same on 19.02.2004. In total 861 eligible candidates appeared for interview for class IV posts on 10.02.2004, 11.02.2004 and 15.02.2004 and the Selection Board Selected 305 candidates and recommended those persons on 19.02.2004 for appointment. The Syndicate approved the recommendation of those 305+469+305 persons i.e. in total 979 persons for appointment as employee of the University. Since posts were vacant and more manpower was required for smooth running of the administration, the University authority made public advertisement in the National Dailies inviting applications for appointments in specific posts. The said advertisement was published in the Daily Ajkaler Khabor on 11.09.2004 and in the Daily  Independent on 15.09.2004. The eligible candidates appeared before the Selection Board on 10.10.2004 and selected 174 persons and recommended them for appointment as officers and employees. The Syndicate approved the said recommendation in its meeting held on 14.10.2004 and appointed 174 officers and employees.  By the aforesaid way in total 1153 persons were appointed during the tenure of Professor Aftab Ahmed. It has further been stated that the Government by a letter circulated under Memo No. Sa: Ma: (SP)- 52/2001 -358 (120) dated 21.10.2001 imposed an embargo on recruitment which was subsequently withdrawn by another letter communicated under Memo No.  mgcwi /Kt wet kvt /KcM- 11-Ask-1/1/2001-350  dated 29.12.2003. After withdrawal of the said embargo the appointments were made. The provision of quota reservation for different Divisions were more or less maintained by such appointment. The creation of posts made within period in question has been ratified by the Senate in its 10th sessions held on 21.10.2004.
  7. 8.          The respondent No.2, the University in its supplementary affidavit-in-opposition filed on 19.01.2012 contended that the Syndicate of the University in an emergency meeting held on 13.1.2012 decided to instruct his legal Advisor not to press the affidavit-in-opposition filed earlier. It has further been stated that the Syndicate in its 112th meeting held on 18.04.2009 formed a Five Members Enquiry Committee consisting of Pro-Vice Chancellor, Treasurer, Principal, Eden College and Dean of National University for holding inquiry over the matter. The said committee, after holding enquiry submitted its report on 31.12.2009 which was accepted by the Syndicate on 07.01.2010 (The inquiry report has been produced at the time of hearing of the Rule). It has further been stated that Inquiry Committee found that the then administration had submitted false and fraudulent statements and documents in affidavit-in-opposition in this Court earlier and it was necessary to take steps against the persons who were involved in  making such affidavit-in-opposition. Although 6319 persons filed their applications for getting appointment as officers and employees of the University but no written test was held for evaluating the candidature inasmuch as in the advertisement it was mentioned that in case of more applications the authority may take written examination. Inquiry Committee further observed: “j¶¨bxq  †h, †Kvb c‡`i wecix‡Z AwaK msL¨K cªv_x© _vK‡j wek¡we`¨vjq KZ…©c¶ cª‡qvR‡b cªv_x©‡`i wjwLZ cix¶v I Mªnb Ki‡Z cv‡i|Ó K_vwU weÁw߇Z D‡j­L _vK‡jI wb‡qvM weÁw߇Z c‡`i msL¨v D‡j­L wQj bv| Ò AwaK msL¨K cªv_x© ZrKvjxb KZ…©c¶ wKfv‡e wePvi K‡i‡Qb welqwU  ¯úó bq, d‡j MY wb‡qv‡Mi  my‡hvM m„wó nq| weÁw߇Z eq‡mi welqwU D‡j­L  Kiv nqwb| —— gvÎ 20 w`‡bi g‡a¨ GZ wecyj msL¨K Av‡e`bcÎ hvPvB evQvB m¤úbœ K‡i B›UviwfD KvW© cªv_x©‡`i wbKU GZ Aí mg‡qi g‡a¨ wK cªwG“qvq  †cŠQvb n‡jv Zv †evaMg¨ bq| —- †iwRóªvi (fvicªvß) Rbve  †gvt kwn`yi ingvb eZ©gvb cªkvm‡bi Kv‡Q 05/02/2004, 06/02/2005, 07/02/2004, 08/02/2004, 09/02/2004, 10/02/2004 I 11/02/2004 Zvwi‡Li Kg©KZ©v wbe©vPbx †ev‡W©i mfvq  †h, Kvh© weeiYx Dc¯nvcb K‡ib Zv‡Z Kg©KZ©v wbe©vPbx  †ev‡W©i mycvwik (G“wgK 01  †_‡K 12bs cvZvq mycvwik) cª_g cvZvq Ges  †kl cvZvq wbe©vPbx  †ev‡W©i m`m¨‡`i ¯^v¶i Av‡Q| †fZ‡i 10 wU cvZvq KwgwUi m`m¨‡`i KviI ¯^v¶i/ Bwbwkqvj †bB Ges g~jKwc  cªkvm‡bi Kv‡Q  n¯—vš—i Kiv nq wbÓ| In this supplementary affidavit-in-opposition the University further quoted some portions of the Inquiry Report, which runs as follows:

“wek¡we`¨vj‡qi Kg©cwiwa H mgq Ggbfv‡e we¯—„Z nq wb †h, evowZ Kv‡Ri Pvc w`‡Z 49 wU Dc- †iwRóvi I mggv‡bi D”P c`mn 1054 wU bZzb c` m„wói Avek¨KZv wQj| c` m„wói  wm×vš— wQj ev¯—eewR©Z I G‡Kev‡iB Abvek¨K| — Z‡e ewb©Z †¶‡Î c` m„wói Rb¨ †Kvb  †hŠwI“KZv mnKv‡i ‡Kvb cª¯—ve wefvM/ `dZi †_‡K Av‡mwb Ges c` m„wó msG“vš— KwgwUi mfvi wKsev wmwÛ‡KU cª‡qvRbxqZv/ Avek¨KZv wee…Z K‡i  †Kvb wKQy ejv nqwb Ges G msG“vš— AvBbMZ †Kvb cªwG“qvI gvbv nq wb| —- †Kej ivR‰bwZK  D‡Ïk¨ cyi‡bi j‡¶¨ wb‡qvM`v‡bi Rb¨ AcwiKwíZ Ges Acª‡qvRbxqfv‡e Rbej wb‡qvM  †`Iqv  n‡q‡Q|  hvi wek¡we`¨vj‡qi †Kvb Avek¨KZv wQj bv| —– wm‡bU Øviv Abymgw_©Z RvZxq wek¡we`¨vjq PvKzix mswewa -6 Ges  ZrKvjxb wewagvjv 3(18) Gi G“wgK 13‡Z Dc- †iwRóªvi/ mggvb c‡`  mivmwi wb‡qv‡Mi †¶‡Î †Kvb weavb wQj bv| ïay c‡`vbœwZi weavb wQj| ——- Dc  †iwRóªvi/ mggvb c‡` Kg©KZ©vM‡bi mivmwi wb‡qvM cªwG“qv  PvKzix wewa Abyhvqx  ˆeaZv AR©b K‡i wb e‡j Z`š— KwgwU cªZ¨¶ K‡ib| wmwÛ‡KU KZ…©K  ewnf~©Zfv‡e G wb‡qvM m¤úbœ K‡i‡Q| Acª‡qvRbxq Rbej wb‡qv‡Mi Kv‡j Avw_©K  ¶wZ cªvq 150  †KvwU UvKv| ——– wb‡qvM`v‡bi mgq cªviw¤¢K g~j ‡eZ‡bi mv‡_ AwZwiI“ 1 n‡Z 7wU  ch©š— BbwG“‡g›U †hvM K‡i  †eZb wbav©iY Kivi d‡j Avw_©K ¶wZ n‡q‡Q cªvq 88 j¶ UvKv|Ó  1222 persons were employed from 05.07.2003 to 20.07.2005.  Out of them 78 persons were given advance increments . In between November, 2003 to 04.01.2004 ,  331 persons were appointed a ad-hoc basis. On the basis of the advertisement dated 05.01.2004 new 538 persons + those 331 persons in total 869 persons were appointed in different posts. Thereafter, from March, 2004 to 31.08.2004, 194 persons were appointed on ad-hoc basis. Those 194 persons on ad-hoc appointees and some other persons, filed application for getting regular appointment on the basis of fake advertisement purported to have been published in the Daily Independent on 15.09.2004 and in the Daily Ajkaler Khabor on 11.09.2004 and they were appointed.  From March 2004 to 31.08.2004  some persons were directly appointed to the post of Deputy Registrar/ equivalent post violating the then Statute. Some posts e.g. Senior Programmer, Maintenance Engineer, Assistant Chief Medical Officer, Senior Section Officer, Law Officer, Assistant Section Officer, Senior Assistants were not in existence in the schedule of the Statute at the relevant time but appointments were made. The Inquiry Comm-ittee also found that in the 63rd meeting of the Syndicate held on 05.11.2003 although 679 posts were created by tempering the original minutes the same was converted to 938. The University finally stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that (a) in the earlier affidavit-in-opposition false statements were made and fabricated documents were annexed, (b) minute of 63rd Syndicate meeting was tempered, (c) posts were created in violating the applicable laws/rules and without budget sanction (d) large number of ad-hoc appoint-ment and then substantive appointments were made violating the applicable laws/ rules and without budget sanction causing financial loss, (e) advertis-ement published in the Daily Sangbad on 05.01.2004 was not a proper advertisement, (f) minutes of Selection Board was tempered, (g) advance increments were given causing financial loss.

  1. 9.          In supplementary affidavit-in-opposition dated 31.01.2012 the respondent No.2 the University stated that the Registrar of the University is the keeper and custodian of all documents of the University under Section 15 of the Act. It was decided in the meeting of Syndicate held on 10.03.2010 that the minutes of 63rd Syndicate meeting containing initials of the Registrar and Deputy Registrar would be treated as correct version. The available agenda of 71st  Syndicate meeting as found in the file does not contain the signature of the Registrar. It contains the initial of the then Vice Chancellor.  It has been detected in inquiry that 6 employees managed to get appointments producing fake certificates.
  2. 10.      The respondent No.4 in his affidavit-in-opposition stated that he was Registrar of the NationalUniversity from 09.03.1992 to 25.02.2004 and he was removed from his office on 25.02.2004. Against which he filed Writ Petition No.1810 of 2004 and obtained Rule and ultimately the said Rule was made absolute.  Accordingly, he was reinstated. This respondent as Registrar raised objection to such large scale and unprecedented ad-hoc appoint-ments. For the said reasons, the then Vice- Chancellor removed him from the post of Registrar.
  3. 11.      In their affidavit-in-opposition submitted on 12.01.2012 the added respondent Nos. 5-27, 29-110, 112-194, 197-457, 459-466, 486, 576, 595, 596, 600, 604, 632, 636, 701, 917-922, denying all the material allegations contended that the National University is an autonomous Public Body established under National University Act and its appointments are guided by its own laws, rules and regulations. As to the maintenance of quota reservation, these respondents stated that this is a matter of State Policy, and is hence not judicially enforceable.  Amongst these answering respondents 197 respondents were appointed on temporary/ad-hoc basis by the Vice- Chancellor. Thereafter they filed applications to get appointment on regular basis in pursuance of the advertisement published in “the Daily Sangbad”,  “the  Banglabazar Patrika” and “ the News Today” on 05.01.2004. Those 197 respondents who got ad-hoc appointments and 276 others (who are also the respondents as referred above) being fresh applicants applied for appointments  to the posts. Issuing interview cards they were invited to appear before the concerned Selection Committee on different dates for interview. The University formed three Selection Committees. These respondents appeared before the concerned Selection Committee for facing interview. The respondent Nos. 5-27, 29-110, 112-115, 267, 285-292, 318 and 917 were amongst the officers, whose appointments were recomm-ended by the concerned selection board. The respondent Nos. 116-194, 196-238, 263, 264, 268-279, 281, 282, 293-217, 319- 351, 354-409. 445-448, 463, 464, 876, 595, 596, 600, 604, 918-920 were amongst the third class employees, whose appointments were recommended by the concerned selection committee. The respondent Nos. 240-260, 262, 265, 266, 280, 283, 284, 352, 353, 410-433, 435-443, 448, 490, 451, 453, 455-457, 459-461, 463,  464, 466, 653, 701, 921 and 922 were amongst the 4th class employees whose appointments were recommended by the concerned selection board. The Syndicate by its 65th meeting held on 19.02.2004 approved the appointments of the aforesaid officers. The appointments of 3rd class and 4th class employees were given effect after approval of the Vice- Chancellor on 19.02.2004. Their services were subsequently confirmed by the University. There were no illegality or irregularity in the processes of appointments of the added respondents.  These respondents  by a supplementary affidavit dated 29.1.2012, inter alia, stated that these respondents are not concerned with the appointments made pursuant to the advertisement allegedly published on 15.09.2004 in  “The Daily Independent”. The advertisement, under which these respondents have been appointed, was published in the Daily Sangbad on 05.0l.2004.   The advertisement dated 05.01.2004 was  genuine one. The allegation that the Annexures-‘3’, ‘6’,   ‘6A’, ‘6B’, ‘6D’, ‘6E’, ‘9’, ‘9A’, ‘9C’ and 9D are forged is preposterous. The minutes of all meetings are genuine. The meetings in issue were chaired by the V.C. The minutes signed by the Registrar and Assistant Registrar referred to creation of 609 posts are not genuine. None of the inquiry report referred by the petitioners alleged such forgery. The UGC report dated 6.9.2006 is patently unreliable for the reason that though it was formed pursuant to the decision of the Standing Committee of the Ministry of Education of the 8th Parliament which required the U.G.C. to itself inquire the matter thoroughly. The committee itself decided to proceed solely on the basis of the record of the earlier Inquiry Committee.  It has further been stated that it is not legally possible to not press an affidavit. On a prayer, submission and grounds pressed in support of a prayer can be “not pressed”. The inquiry report dated 31.12.2009 makes no allegation with respect to the appointments of these respondents. The University is presently suffering due to lack of manpower stemming from removal of employees. The laws pertaining to the University clearly show that there is no requirement for budgetary provision before creation of posts. The requirement of law is that there must be necessary financial provision. Whether there is such financial provision depends upon the judgment of the Post Creation Committee and the Syndicate, both of which include Treasurer, who  is charged with looking the finance of the University. It has been mentioned that in 2004-2005 the University had F.D.R.S. of Tk. 151,70,50,153/-  representing investment of its income derived from its own sources. This figure has arisen tk. 342,66,7,494/- as in 2009-2010. The University does not rely on grants from  Government or U.G.C. to meet its revenue expenses. The University has always had adequate financial recourses to meet the additional appointment in issue which was within the knowledge of the posts creation committee and the Syndicate of which the Treasurer was a member. In another supplementary affidavit-in-opposition filed on 06.02.2012 this respondents further contended that the University’s apparent support of the writ petition’s assailing of the selection process of these respondents as undertaken by the Selection Committee between 05.02.2004 to 11.02.2004 in response to the advertisement dated 05.02.2004 against post created in  63rd meeting of the Syndicate on 05.11.2003 is now being affirmed by an individual (Mr.Mollah Mahfuz-Al Hossain), who has been performing the functions of Registrar of the National University as additional charge. He himself was appointed to his current substantive post through self same process. This alone reveals the malafide of National University. The reports referred by the National University have been prepared beyond the back of the respondents. These respondents have not been given any opportunity to show cause or make representation or comments either during preparation of the report or after the reports were prepared. The reports thus violated the principle of Natural Justice and cannot be relied on.
  4. 12.      In their Affidavit-in –Opposition, the respondent Nos. 283-297, 299-334,  336-405, 410, 411, 444, 417-521, 886-907, 909, 911-913, 915 and 916, inter alia contended that  Professor Aftab Ahmed joined National University in July, 2003  as the Vice Chancellor. The Government on 21.10.2001 imposed embargo on new appointments in Government, semi Government sectors and in autonomous bodies. The embargo was effective upto 29/12/2003. For that reason all appoint-ments remained stopped for a long period creating backlog of work in the University. After withdrawal of the embargo to meet exigencies of manpower shortage the then Vice Chancellor (Respondent No.1) had no option but to appoint on Ad-hoc basis under Section 12(10) of the National University Act. These appointments were purely temporary.  All other Vice- Chancellors preceding Professor Aftab Ahamed made such type of appointments.  For appointment under Section 12(10) of the National University Act, no prior advertise-ment or examination by any Selection Committee was required. The Syndicate of the University was duly informed of the aforesaid ad-hoc appointments, as was required by law. Regarding increments given to some appointees, it is stated that Rule 10 of the Service statute empowers the appointing authority to grant one or more increments while fixing their scale of pay. Increments at the time of appointments were granted to a few appointees considering their experience, competence and expertise.   With regard to the allegation that many appointees had appointed on the date of appointment or on the following day it is stated that those who had been in service as ad-hoc appointees, after regulari-zation of their  service through  proper advertisement and selection  process, received respective letters of appointment and  being in the campus joined the  posts on the following day or  thereafter.  As per Provision section 24 (2) of the Act the approval of budget is within  the jurisdiction of the Syndicate  not the Senate. The budgetary provisions were duly made to pay the salaries of the appointees.  The Senate of the University in its 10th session held on 21.10.2004 approved and ratified all the decisions and actions taken by the University regarding  creation of posts and appointments .  As per provision of Rule 97 of the Statute-6 Syndicate, on the basis of recommendation made by a committee comprising the Vice Chancellor, Pro-Vice Chancellor and Treasurer, may create or abolish posts of officers and other employees of the University. During the tenure of Prof.  Aftab Ahmad post creation committee  recommended for creation of 938 posts of officers and employees by resolution dated 27.10.2003, 101 posts by resolution dated 28.3.2004, 23 posts by resolution dated 13.7.2003, 48 posts by resolution dated 31.08.2004, 31 posts by resolution dated 14.10.2004 and 113 posts by resolution dated 09.02.2005 and 01 post by resolution dated 16.03.2005. In total 1255 posts of officers and employees were proposed to be created by the concerned committee.  Before recommendation of creation of any new posts, the concerned committee considers conseque-ntial financial liabilities likely to be incurred thereby. The Treasurer, who is responsible for financial management of the University as per section 14(4), (5) and (6) of the National University Act, is a member of the said committee. Hence, the recommendation by the committee for creating a new post is necessarily attached with implied financial sanction.  The Syndicate of the University approved those decisions of the Post Creation  Committee. Accordingly those posts were duly created. The University authority made public advertisement inviting applications for appointments in 30 posts of officers and employees which were published in national dailies on 05.01.2004. In response to the advertisement, thousands of applicants applied for various posts of officers and employees. Three selection Boards were constituted one for the officers and one for the third class employees and the rest one for the fourth class employees under the provisions of Statute. 3075 candidates applied for the posts of officers. Some more thousands applied for class III and Class IV posts. The eligible candidates including those respondents appeared before the respective Selection Boards. Those respondents were selected by the Selection Boards in accordance with law. The respondents did not know about any lapses or illegality in the process of selection.  The University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) held two inquiries regarding allegations of illegality and corruption in recruitment during the tenure of the former Vice- Chancellor Professor Aftab Ahmed. The first four member inquiry committee was headed by Professor Dr. K.M. Mohshin, Member, U.G.C. The enquiry committee submitted its report on 22.05.2006. The second four member inquiry committee was headed by Professor Dr. M. Azaduzzaman, the Chairman of the U.G.C. This committee submitted its report on 03.09.2006. In those inquiries no illegality was found in creation of posts at the relevant period. It is mentioned in the second inquiry report that Post Creation  Committee   recommended to create 1256 posts . All the respondents got their appointments in permanent posts on the basis of their applications following public advertisement in the daily “Sangbad” on 05.01.2004. All the petitioners had requisite qualifications to get employment. None of the respondents were beyond generally accepted age limit. There is no specific allegation against any of the respondents that they got appointments without requisite qualifications and beyond age limit.  These respondents applied for job following public advertisement in the daily Sangbad dated 05.01.2004. The U.G.C. inquiry team noticed that number of required posts and age limit of the applicant were not mentioned in the said advertisement. In consequence there was lack of transparency in recruitment. Such omissions in the said advertisement did not render appointments illegal and void.  The U.G.C. in its aforesaid inquires did not find that recruitments were made without prior public advertisement. On the plea of omissions as to non – mentioning of required number of posts and age-limit in the public advertisement dated 5.1.2004, appointments made during the period 17.11.2003 to 31.8.2004 are not liable to be set aside. This  respondents  by filing supplementary affidavit-in-opposition dated 29.01.2012 further contended that  creation of new posts and appointments therein were well provided by appropriate allocations in the budgets and the revised budgets of the National University  for the financial years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 . In the budget for year 2003-2004 taka 282.98 lac in 2004-2005 taka 100 lac and in 2005-2006 taka 50 lac were allocated for appointments in vacant posts.  127 officers and employees, who got ad-hoc appointments in various posts under section 12(10) of the National University Act before 2002, and continued as such till  the advertisement in the daily “Sangbad” dated 5.01.2004, applied along with these respondents  for substantive appointment making reference to the aforesaid advertisement. They, along with these respondents, faced the same Selection Boards and were recommended these respondents  for appointment. They got appointments in various posts as per decision of the 65th meeting of Syndicate held on 19.2.2004. It is strange that nothing is said about the aforesaid 127 officers and employees in the University Grants Commission Reports or in the National University Inquiry Reports. Those appointees are still in service but these respondents stand on same footing with them with respect to creation of posts, advertisement and resolutions of the concerned Syndicate meetings had been put in question which is discriminatory.
  5. 13.      That the respondent Nos. 710-734, 736-878, 880-882, in their affidavit-in-opposition on 26.1.2012,  inter alia,  contended that in  total (89+230)= 319  officers and employees including the  respondents got appointment in various permanent posts of Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar, Senior Section Officer, Section Officers, Technical Officer, Sub- Technical officer, Upper Division Clerk, Lower Division Clerk and MLSS, pursuant to the advertisement published in the daily The Independent on 15.9.2004 and the Bengali daily “‰`wbK AvRKv‡ji LeiÓ   on 11.9.2004 with  reference to the memo No.01(740) Jati: Bi:/ Prosha:/2004/1/2384 dated 25 Bhadra, 1411/09 September, 2004 issued by the competent authority of the University. Out of 319 appointees, 89 officers and employees, who got ad-hoc appointment before 2001, applied for substantive appointment under the aforesaid advertisement. 195 appointees, who got ad-hoc appointment in the period from March 2004 to September, 2004 (before the advertisement) also applied under the advertisement dated 15.09.2004. The remaining 35 appointees applied afresh with reference to the said advertisement. The disputed advertisement published on 15.9.2004 in the city edition of the daily “The  Independent” was  not forged. The contents of the letters dated 10.02.2007, 04.09.2007 and 09.06.2008 under the    signatures of the Managing Director and Advisory Editor respectively of “the Independent” (Annexure- D series to the supplementary affidavit by the added petitioner) denying publication of the said advertisement are not true. Informations supplied by the Bangladesh Press Institute on 02.06.2008, 05.09.2007, and 12.02.2007 (F series to the aforesaid affidavit) regarding the disputed advertisement are not exhaustive. The information dated 27.8.2007 (Annexure G to the said affidavit) is not exhaustive regarding the advertisement. The contents of the letter dated 26.5.2008 are not true. The advertisement was approved by the Vice Chancellor on 09.09.2004 and issued for publication. The advertisement was hung in the notice board of the University. A paper clipping of the daily “Independent” dated 15.09.2004 embracing the disputed advertise-ment was also posted in the notice board of the University. It was noticed to  those who had been serving in the campus of the University as ad-hoc/ temporary appointees. Most of the respondents read the advertisement in the “daily Independent” dated 15.9.2004. They accordingly applied for regularization or permanent appointment in their respective posts. The petitioners were issued interview cards. They faced respective Selection Boards duly constituted for the purpose. The applicants of various posts of officers and employees were interviewed by three separate Selection Boards one for officers, one  for 3rd Class employees, and the other for 4th Class employees. The Selection Boards made separate recommendations on 10.10.2004. The Syndicate in its 71st meeting held on 14.10.2004 considered recommend-ations of the Selection Board for officers and recruited some of the respondents in  various posts of officers. The respondents, who are 3rd class and 4th class employees, were appointed by the Vice Chancellor on the basis of the recom-mendations of the respective Selection Boards. Under Rule 99(ga) of the Service Statute the Vice Chancellor is appointing authority of the 3rd class and 4th class employees according to recommendations by Selection Boards. The respondents possessed requisite qualifications to get employment in their respective posts.  The respondents made applications for jobs in good faith. The respondents did not know about any lapse, irregularity or illegality or violation of recruitment rules allegedly committed by the appointing authority in process of recruitment. The respondents were neither party nor privy to any  such alleged irregularities or illegalities in recruitment. 89 officers and employees, who got adhoc appointments in various posts before 2001 and continued in their posts as such till 2004, applied for permanent appointments  making reference to the disputed advertisement vide memo No.01(740) Jati: Bi:/ Prosha: 2004/ 1/2384 dated 25 Badra, 1411/09 September, 2004 and the paper clipping of the daily “Independent” dated 15.09.2004 embracing the advertisement. They along with the answering respondents faced the same Selection Boards in the same manner, and were recommended by Selection Boards for permanent appointments in the posts applied for. The recommendations Nos. 21,22, 23, 29, 30 and 31 of the proceedings of the meeting dated 10.10.2004 of the Selection Board for recruitment of officers, and the recommendations Nos.2, 3, 4, 7 and 9 of the proceedings of the meeting dated 10.10.2004 of the Selection Board for recruitment of 3rd class employees and the recommendation No.4 of  the proceedings of the meeting dated 10.10.2004 of the Selection Board for recruitment of the 4th Class employees dealt with recommendations in respect of those employees who continued as temporary employees since before 2001. Amongst them who are officers were accordingly appointed in various posts by the Syndicate in its 71st meeting held on 14.10.2004 and 3rd class and 4th class employees were appointed by the Vice Chancellor on the recommendations of the Selection Board. It is strange that the enquiry committees constituted by the respondent University and by the UGC (University Grants Commission) remained conspicuously silent about the above said appointments.  The  Senate of the University in its 10th session held on 21.10.2004 approved and ratified all the amendments made in the Service Statute and all the decisions and actions taken by the University authority in creating posts, providing budget and making appointments in those posts. These respondents by filing supplementary affidavit on 29.01.2012 further contended that 60 officers and 29 employees were appointed on ‘adhoc’ temporary basis before  2002 and continued as such till the disputed advertisement in the daily “Indepe-ndent” dated 15th September, 2004 applied along with these respondents for substantive appointment with  reference to the said advertisement and faced the same Selection Boards and got appointment along with the answering respondents. Those officers and employees standing in the similar footings with this respondents are still in service which is discriminatory. This respondents by filing another Supplementary affidavit-in-reply on 30.1.2012  further  contending that the adver-tisement inviting application for employment issued by the National University Authority under Memo No.10(740) Jati: Bi: Prohsa:/ 2004/1/2384 dated 25 Bhadra, 1411/09 September, 2004 was published in the daily The Independent, City Edition on 15.09.2004 (3rd Page, left hand side, below the item “ Regret for the interruption of Service” by Grameen Phone). The respondents have collected attested photocopies of the 1st page and the 3rd page of the said daily dated 15.09.2004 from the Archives and National Library of Bangladesh.  The said document has been attested by Mr. Md. Abu Zafor, Assistant Director, Directorate of Archives and Library.
  6. 14.      The respondent No. 885, in his Affidavit-in-opposition contended that he did his B.A. examination in Islamic Studies in the Chittagong University and obtained second class in 1991.  He obtained first class in M.A. in Islamic Studies in 1993 from the Dhaka University. He joined the Dhaka Women College, Uttara, Dhaka as a lecturer on 20.10.1996, and served therein for a period of more than 7 years. He also served as a lecturer (part time ) in the Asian University of Bangladesh . He has got some publications in Islamic Studies. He has frequent participation in talk shows in electronic media, such as Bangladesh Television, ATN Bangla, Channel I. On 22.04.2004, he was appointed an Assistant Professor on ad-hoc basis in the National University. He was transferred to a post of Senior Assistant Registrar on 28.7.2004. He joined the post on 29.7.2004. On 6.10.2004 an advertisement inviting application in the post of Proctor was published in the daily “News Today” by the University authority. The respondent as an internal candidate applied on 12.10.2004 seeking employment in the said post. He was issued an interview card dated 13.10.2004 to appear before the Selection Board on 19.10.2004.  He faced interview. The Selection Board recommended his appointment on 19.10.2004.  The Syndicate of the University in its 72nd meeting held on 19.10.2004 accepted the aforesaid recommendation and decided to appoint this respondent in the post of Proctor. On 20.10.2004, this respondent was sent a letter of appointment in pursuance of which he joined the post on that date.  His joining was duly accepted. His service was confirmed by the Syndicate in its 86th meeting held on 06.03.2006, and he was conveyed the decision of confirmation duly. On 10.2.2008 this respondent on transfer was posted as a Deputy Registrar. Taking release from the post of Proctor on 13.02.2008 he joined the post of Deputy Registrar in Charge of Curriculum, Development and EvaluationCenter of the University. He has served the post until 11.09.2011 on which date he was discharged from service by way of implementation of the judgment and order dated 23. 8.2011 passed in Review Petition No. 67 of 2010.
  7. 15.      In affidavit-in-reply by the co-petitioner to the affidavit-in-Opposition filed by added respondent No. 283 and others stated that in affidavit-in-opposition dated 17.1.2012 has been filed on behalf of 257 respondents but only one person, namely the added respondent No.258 Mohammad Abu Hanif Khandoker  has sworn the affidavit. He was purported to be appointed on ad-hoc basis on 22.12.2003 as Section Officer, joined in the service on 23.12.2003 and was appointed permanently on 15.2.2004; the CID’s inquiry found this appointment to be made on the basis of false documents (Annexure-10 series to the affidavit -in-Opposition filed by the University). He along with his accomplice were convicted for assaulting a Teacher of the National University and were sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment by the judgment dated 4.8.2011 in Joydevpur P.S. Case No.39(10) 2008.  The claim of the added respondent No.258 regarding his competency to swear the affidavit on behalf of 257 other added respondents is misconceived and untenable, since different persons were appointed on different dates and in circumst-ances which are not identical.  It has further been stated that the recruitments were made in violation of the Rules prior to the budgetary and financial sanction, no posts   having been created without corresponding to budgetary provision; payment of salary to huge number of appointees was illegal; salary was paid to the employees out of Reserve Fund of the University.  In case of 1255 posts concerned, including those relating to the added respond-ents were not created at all in compliance with the  conditions of the said rules and were made before budgetary approval and allocation of funds and the creation of posts and were, therefore illegal and void.
  8. 16.      Mr. Abdur Rab Chowdhury, the learned Senior Advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner. Dr. Kamal Hossain, the learned Senior Advocate   with Mr. A.M. Amin Uddin, the learned Advocate appear on behalf of the co-petitioner.
  9. 17.       The respondent No. 1 died.
  10. 18.      Mr. Zafar Ahmed, the learned Advocate, appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2, the National University. Ms. Fawzia Karim, the learned Advocate, appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4. Mr. Rokanuddin Mahmud, the learned Senior Counsel, along with Mr. Mustafizur Rahman Khan, the learned Advocate, appear on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3-27, 29-110, 112-194, 196-457, 459-466, 576, 595, 596, 604, 632, 653, 701 and 917-922.
  11. 19.      Mr. Rafiq-Ul Huq, the learned Senior Counsel, along with Mr. Khair Ezaz Maswood and Mr. A.Q.M. Shafiullah, the learned Advocates, appear on behalf of the respondent No. 283-297, 299-334, 336-405, 410, 411, 414, 417-521, 886-907, 909, 911-913, 915 and 916. They also appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 710-735, 736-878, 880 and 881.
  12. 20.      Mr. Md. Belayet Hossain, the learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 883.
  13. 21.      The learned Advocates for the petitioners submit that the respondent No. 1 in a reckless and irresponsible manner, in violation of public policy and applicable laws and regulations, appointed hundreds of people during the tenure of Prof. Aftab Ahmed which are liable to be set aside. They submit that those appointments were made violating the recruitment rules and quota reservation and without having any sanctioned posts and approval of the Senate of the University for additional expenditure in the budget, so those appointments are liable to be declared unlawful. The appointments have been given fraudulently with ill motive and for personal gains and giving several increments in case of some of the appointees. They further submit that no advertisement was made in accordance with law and no written examin-ation was held to select the most efficient, honest and suitable candidates and some of them were regularized considering them as departmental candidates by relaxation of their age and qualifications. They submit that the circular of the Prime Minister’s Office so far the creation of new posts are concerned  have not been followed, the creation of new posts  were not made in accordance with law, Senate and Syndicate  did not approve the proposal of creation of posts in accordance with law. The advertisement dated 05.01.2004 was not made in accordance w

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.