Ranjit and others Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Parliament Secretariat. SherE-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka & others

Appellate Division Cases

(Civil)

PARTIES

Ranjit and others…………………….. Petitioners.

-VS-

Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Parliament Secretariat. SherE-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka & others………………………. Respondents

JUSTICES

Syed J.R. Mudassir Husain CJ

M.M. Ruhul Amin J

Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J

JUDGMENT DATED: 19th April 2006

Parliament Secretariat Officers and Employees Recruitment Rules, 1982 (shortly the Rules, 1982)

Provisions of Sangshad Sachibalay Karmakarta-O-Karmachari Neeyog Bidhimala, 1994 (shortly the Bidhimala, 1994).

But due to imposition of some arbitrary and discriminatory conditions only candidates of certain districts were eligible to apply and other candidates of certain districts were not eligible to apply for the posts advertised. The impugned advertisements purporting to debar the applicants coming from certain districts from applying for the posts advertised amounts to denial for their to have the equal opportunity……………………….. (2)

The conditions for maintaining the district quota is based on the different circulars of the government and the same is not violative of Article 29 of the Constitution, rather it serves the pupose of securing adequate representation of the backward section of the citizens ………………………….(5)

The High Court Division held that Sub Section (2) of Section 10 applies to permanent employees of the Jatiya Sangshad Sachibalay and therefore Sub Section 2 of Section 10 of the Ain, 1994 does not apply to the petitioners. The High Court Division further held that the petitioners were not appointed as per Provisions of the Rules, 1982 or the Bidhimala, 1994. The High Court Division further held that the condition 9 of the advertisement was in conflict with condition 4 of the dvertisement. In condition 4 of the advertisement employees working on daily basis (year to year) were eligible to apply for the vacant posts but in condition 9 of the advertisement only candidates of some districts were eligible to apply and the candidates of other districts which were not mentioned in condition 9 of the advertisement were not eligible to apply. Accordingly some of the employees who are working in the Jatiya Sangshad Sachibalay for a long period are not eligible to apply as some of them did not hail from those districts mentioned in condition 9 of the advertisement. Accordingly the High Court Division declared after assigning cogent reasons condition 9 of the advertisement as illegal so far as it relates to the persons mentioned in condition 4 of the advertisements…………………. (9)

Amir-Ul-Islam, Senior Advocate instructed by Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record.

………………………………….For the Petitioners.

A.J. Mohammad AH, Attorney General, instructed by A.S.M. Khalequzzaman,

Advocate-on-Record……………………. For Respondent No.l

Respondent Nos. 2-43……………………………………. Not represented.

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1599 of 2005

(From the judgment and order dated 31.08.2005 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 4511 of 2005.)

JUDGMENT

M.M. Ruhul Amin J : This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 4511 of 2005 making the Rule absolute in part. 2. Short facts are that the petitioners are class three and class four employees of the Jatiya Sangshad Sachibalay and they have been serving as Typist, Diarist, Messenger, Security Guard etc. for a long

period on daily basis (year to year). Some of the petitioners who were appointed before 1994, were appointed in accordance with the Parliament Secretariat Officers and Employees Recruitment Rules, 1982 (shortly the Rules, 1982). The other employees who were appointed in 1994 and afterwards, they were appointed in accordance with the provisions of Sangshad Sachibalay Karmakarta-O-Karmachari Neeyog Bidhimala, 1994

(shortly the Bidhimala, 1994). Advertisements were published in two national dailies on 27.05.2005 and 28.05.2005 inviting applications from the citizens of Bangladesh for appointment to various posts in the Parliament Secretariat. But due to imposition of some

arbitrary and discriminatory conditions only candidates of certain districts were eligible to apply and other candidates of certain districts were not eligible to apply for the posts advertised. The impugned advertisements purporting to debar the applicants coming from certain districts from applying for the posts advertised amounts to denial for their to have the equal opportunity. The reference given to the petitioners by relaxing the age limit

has been frustrated by the restriction imposed in the advertisement.

3. Being aggrieved by the impugned advertisements dated 27.05.2005 and 28.05.2005 the petitioners moved the High Court Division in writ jurisdiction and obtained the Rule.

4. The petitioners by filing a supplementary affidavit stated that the Deputy Secretary (Human Resources), Bangladesh Jatiya Sangshad Schibalay served notice upon the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for showing cause for their alleged absence from office from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. only to victimize them. The petitioners also made a supplementary affidavit on 30.08.2005 wherein it has been stated that the petitioners on different dates made representations to the Hon’ble Prime Minister for regularizing their appointments

on humanitarian ground and the Prime Minister’s office sent the matter to the Secretary, Jatiyo Sangshad Sachibalay to consider the matter as per law.

5. The respondent No. 1 contested the Rule by filing affidavit-in-opposition and denied the material allegations made in the writ petition. The case of the respondent No. 1. in short, is that the petitioners are not regular employees of the Jatiya Sangshad Sachibalaya and they were not recruited under the provisions of the Bidhimala, 1994 or under the provisions of Rules. 1982. The petitioners were simply employed on daily basis (year to year). The conditions for maintaining the district quota is based on the different circulars of the government and the same is not violative of Article 29 of the Constitution, rather it serves the pupose of securing adequate representation of the backward section of the citizens. There is no provision in the Bidhimala, 1994 that the persons working on daily basis will automatically be absorbed in the vacant posts. The question of debarring the petitioners from applying for the vacant posts does not arise. The petitioners have already applied for appointment in the posts advertised. The respondent’s applications were scrutinized and it was in the process of sending the interview cards to the eligible applicants including the petitioners and in the meantime, the petitioners with malafide

intention to subvert the process of appointment filed the instant writ petitiion. 6. The respondent No. 1 by filing a supplementary affidavit-in-opposition stated that the petitioners fall within the purview of condition 4 of the advertisement and they have been given opportunity to apply for the vacant posts relaxing their age limits and accordingly, all the petitioners already applied for the posts advertised.

7.The High Court Division upon consideration of the materials on record and hearing

the learned Counsel for the parties made the Rule absolute in part as noticed earlier.

8. We have heard Mr. M. Amir-Ul Islam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.J. Mohammad Ali. the learned Attorney General for respondent No. 1 and perused the judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers.

9. The High Court Division held that Sub Section (2) of Section 10 applies to permanent

employees of the Jatiya Sangshad Sachibalay and therefore Sub Section 2 of Section 10 of the Ain, 1994 does not apply to the petitioners. The High Court Division further held that the petitioners were not appointed as per Provisions of the Rules, 1982 or the Bidhimala. 1994. The High Court Division further held that the condition 9 of the advertisement was in conflict with condition 4 of the advertisement.In condition 4 of the advertisement employees working on daily basis (year to year) were eligible to apply for the vacant posts but in condition 9 of the advertisement only candidates of some districts were eligible to apply and the candidates of other districts which were not mentioned in condition 9 of the advertisement were not eligible to apply. Accordingly some of the employees who are working in the Jatiya Sangshad Sachibalay for a long period are not eligible to apply as some of them did not hail from those districts mentioned in condition

9 of the advertisement. Accordingly the High Court Division declared after assigning cogent reasons condition 9 of the advertisement as illegal so far as it relates to the persons mentioned in condition 4 of the advertisements.

10. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed before us the case of Bangladesh Biman Corporation Vs. Rabia Bashri Irene and others reported in 44 DLR(AD) 132 and the case of Managing Director, Rupali Bank Limited and others Vs. Chairman, First Labour Court and others reported in 46 DLR(AD) 143. In our view, the facts of these cases are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and those have no manner of application in the present case.

11. The learned Attorney General at the time of hearing submitted that the writ petitioners appeared for interview and they have been interviewed for the posts they applied for and the matter is awaiting final disposal but for the pendency of the writ petition, the matter could not be disposed of.

12. In view of the discussions above, we are of the view that the High Court Division on correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the same.

13. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Source : V ADC (2008), 58

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.