Appellate Division Cases
The Chairman, Board of Directors, Rajshahi Krishi Unnayan Bank and another
Md. Abdul Motaleb and others ………………………………………………………………… Respondents
Syed J. R. Mudassir Husain CJ
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J
Date of Judgment
26th October 2005
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981
“Because the employees of the Rajshahi Krishi Unnayan Bank are subject to the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981, the writ petition is not maintainable at their instance and High Court Division erred in not deciding the question though the ground was specifically taken in the affidavit-in-opposition and argued at the hearing of the writ petition (8)
Because the Board of Directors of the Bank in their meeting dated 14.6.2004 (263r” meeting) kept their decision open for the Chairman’s consideration and, as such, it was not final and the Chairman having disagreed with the Board on the ground that the Boards traveled beyond the Padannoti Nitimala in the matter of Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No. 1221 of 2005.
marking on Field Experience (which is violation of the Nitimala dated 17.4.2004) High Court Division erred in deciding the question (8)
Khondker Mahabubuddin Ahmed, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Zahirul Islam, Advocate-on-Record For the Petitioners Amir-ul-Islam, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mrs.Sufia Khatun, Advocatedon-Record For Respondent Nos.1-22 Not Represented. Respondent Nos. Nos. 23 & 24
1. Amirul Kabir Chowdhury, J :- The chairman, Board of Directors of Rajshahi Krishi Unnayan Bank and Managing Director of the said Bank filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 12tn July, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ petition No. 6364 of 2004 disposing of the rule with direction upon the petitioners.
2. Facts-, in brief, necessary for disposal of the petition are that respondent Nos.1-22 filed writ Petition No. 6364 of 2004 stating, interalia, that they are employees of Rajshahi Krishi Unnayan Bank in short RAKUB and that Goverment adopted Rajshahi Krishi Unnayan Bank Karmachari Chakuri Probidhanmala, 1988 which was published on 31.12.1988 and that to set forth the objective criteria relating to the promotion of the officers and employees of RAKUB the Board of Directors adopted Padannoti Nitimala and RAKUB circulated a draft list and in the said seniority list the writ petitioners have been placed on the top of the list who also appeared before Padannoti Nitimala committee to consider their promotion from the post of Assistant General manager to the General Manager and the said committee proposed names of respondent Nos.1-7 For being promoted from the post of Assistant General manger to the post of Deputy General Manager and respondent Nos.8-22 for being promoted from the post of Senior principal officer of Assistant General Manager and the said proposal was placed for approval by the Board in their 263rd meeting dated 22.5.2004 which took place on 14.6.2004 and in the said meeting the Board approved the recommendation of the Padannoti Nitimala committee but no step was taken to implement the decision and that the ministry of Finance and planning in collaboration with other petitioners made some amendments to the padannoti Nitimala dated 17.04.2004 thereby incorpoating subjective criteria to be applied by the management of RAKUB while considering the promotion of the officers/cmplioyees of RAKUB and as such the respondent Nos. 1-22 filed aforesaid writ petition.
3. The Petitioners being respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition contested the rule filing affidavit-in-opposition contending, inter-alia, that the Board of Directors of RAKUB in the 263rd meeting did not approve the recommendation of the promotion committee and as such there was no question of implementing any decision and that the Ministry of Finance being the Bank’s parent Ministry legally amended Padannoti Nitimala dated 30.10.2004 and that by the amended Padannoti Nitimal the Board of Directors kept themselves away from the promotion process and left the whole matter of promotion with the Bank management in the sprit of Bangladesh Bank’s BRPD circular letter No.3 dated 19.2.2002 and it was further mentioned that the proposal of departmental promotion committee was placed before the board for approval in the 263rd meeting held on J 14.6.2003 and Mr. Ruhul Kabir Rizvi, Chairman of the Board being injured in a road accident could not attend the meeting and that the board approved promotion presented by the promotion committee on condition that the decision of the Board was to be vetted by the Chairman of the Board and the matter being placed before the Chairman he disagreed with the same specially on the criteria of markings of fiel experience which was according to ho him, in violation of the Padannoti Nitimala and also discriminatory against the field officers and the Chairman thus instead of vetting the
resolution disagreed with the same and advised RAKUB Management to submit to the Board a memo proposing criteria in the light of recommendations made in the 241st Board Meeting in the sprit of BRPD circular of Bangladesh Bank and accordingly a fresh memo proposing some amendments in the promotion criteria was submitted to the 267th meeting held on 2.9.2004 and the Board approved the proposal for amendment of the Padannoti Nitimala and sent the same to the Ministry of Finance for approval and the Ministry of Finance approved the said amendment of the Padannoti Nitimala and issued letter accordingly on 30.10.2004. it was further averred that the writ petition itself was mot maintainable.
4. The High Court Division after hearing the parties passed the impugned judgment and order directing the petitioners to implement the decision of the Board of Directors in 263rd meeting dated 14.6.2004 approving the promotion of the respondent Nos.1-22.
5. Hence is this petition.
6. In Support of the petition Mr. Khondker Mahbubuddin Ahamed, the learned Senior Advocate submits, inter-alia, that the employees of the RAKUB are subject to the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981 and as such the writ petition being not maintainable, the High Court Division committed an error in disposing of the rule giving the direction as aforesaid. He further submits that no order of promotion having been passed. There was no promotion and the High Court Division committed an error in treating Internal Administration process of the Bank Management as the final order and that the Board of Directors in fact in the 263ld meeting kept their decision pending for the consideration of the Chairman and as such it was not a final decision of the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners are not legally bound to implement the same. He further submits that the observation of the High Court Division that condition of vetting by the Chairman embodied in the minutes of the 263r meeting is without lawful authority and is of no legal effect suffers from serious error of law.
7. Mr. Amir-ul-Islam, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1-22 opposes the petition submitting, inter-alia, that the writ petition was very much maintainable and that the decision was taken in the 263rd meeting recommending promotion of the respondents and so the petitioners are legally bound to implement the same and the so called condition of vetting by the Chairman was without jurisdiction and as such the order passed by the High Court Division does not suffer from any illegality.
8. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the materials on record. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners merit consideration. Accordingly, leave is granted to consider the following grounds: “Because the employees of the Rajshahi Krishi Unnayan Bank are subject to the Administrative Tribunal Act. 1981, the writ petition is not maintainable at their instance and High Court Division erred in not deciding the question though the ground was specifically taken in the affidavit-in-opposition and argued at the hearing of the writ petition. Because on order of promotion having been passed/issued to any of the writ petitioners, there was no promotion and as such, the High Court Division erred in treating inter administration process of the Bank management as the final order. Because the Board of Directors of the Bank in their meeting dated 14.6.2004 (263rd meeting) kept their decision open for the Chairman’s consideration and, as such, it was not final and the Chairman having disagreed with the Board on the ground that the Boards traveled beyond the Padannoti Nitimala in the matter of marking on Field Experience (which is violation of the Nitimala dated 17.4.2004) High Court Division erred in deciding the question. Because the decision of the Board of Directors of the Bank in the 263rd meeting held on 14.6.2004 was really not for vetting by the Chairman, the decision was kept open and, as such, the High Court Division has erred in giving the irection on the basis thereof.”
9. Security of Tk.1000/- is to be deposited within 1 (one) month. 10. The Petitioners are permitted to prepare paper book out of court in accordance with rules. 11. Stay granted earlier be extended for further 6 (six) months from date.
12. The respondents are liberty to mention the matter fixed for hearing in the chamber.
13. The petitioners are directed to prepare paper book within 6 (six) months.
Source: III ADC (2006) 629