Md. Abdur Razzaque and another Vs. Bangladesh and others, 2016(1) LNJ 31

Case No: Writ Petition No. 3230 of 2014

Judge: Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Shafique Ahmed ,Mr. Goutom Kumar Roy,,

Citation: 2016(1) LNJ 31

Case Year: 2016

Appellant: Md. Abdur Razzaque and another

Respondent: Government of Bangladesh and others

Subject: Writ Petition,

Delivery Date: 2014-12-11

HIGH COURT DIVISION
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
 
Md. Moinul Islam Chowdhury, J
And
J. B. M. Hassan, J

Judgment on
11.12.2014
 
Md. Abdur Razzaque
. . .Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10075 of 2011
Md. Mizanur Rahman and others
. . . Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3230 of 2014
-Versus-
Bangladesh and others
. . . Respondents in both the Writ Petitions
 
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102
Nationalized College Teacher and Non-Teaching Staff Absorption Rules, 2000
Rule 6
Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff of Nationalized College (Directorate of Public Institution) Absorption Rules, 1981
Rules 3, 4 and 5
Regarding the 2nd portion of the Rule issued by this court in Writ Petition we consider that the petitioners were given appointment on the ad-hoc basis with effect from 03.07.2006 by order dated 14.09.2006 and the petitioners have been providing their services in the College as the Lecturers and or Assistant Professors on the basis of the aforementioned appointment by order dated 14.09.2006 which contains that the petitioners will be regularized as soon as their appointment would be recommended by the Public Service Commission as per required Rule 6(1) of the Absorption Rules, 2000 which is in operation from 01.02.1978. It appears from the record that the petitioners appointment were recommended by the PSC on 19.02.2009. When the aforesaid two steps have been taken by the respondents including the respondent No. 1 in respect of the services of the petitioners the question naturally arises why the respondents have to be waited for regularizing the petitioners appointment until on 24.10.2013 which is 7 years after the ad-hoc appointment and 4 years from the required recommendation by the PSC. After nationalization of a non- government College the respondents must act promptly in order to give peace of mind to the Lecturers or Assistant Professors who became employees of the government by virtue of the Absorption Rules, 2000 which came into effect on 01.02.1978. Rule 6(5) validly required regularization for encadre of a teacher or lecturer but the malicious inaction on the part of the respondents is to be declared illegal, therefore, without lawful authority. After nationalization of a non- government College the respondents must act promptly in order to give peace of mind to the Lecturers or Assistant Professors who became employees of the government by virtue of the Absorption Rules, 2000 which came into effect on 01.02.1978. Rule 6(5) validly required regularization for encadre of a teacher or lecturer but the malicious inaction on the part of the respondents is to be declared illegal, therefore, without lawful authority. The respondents are hereby directed to regularize the service of the petitioners in W.P. No. 10075 of 2011 from 22.12.1994 under Rules, 1981 and also the petitioners in W.P. No. 3230 of 2014 from 03.07.2006 under Rules, 2000 which came effect from 01.02.1978 within 3(three) months from the receipt of this judgment and order. . . . (34, 36 and 39)

Mr. Shafique Ahmed with
Mr. Mahbub Shafique and
Mr. K. M. Hafizul Alam, Advocates
. . .For the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions
Mr. Goutam Kumar Roy, D.A.G., with
Mr. Md. Eunus Ali, A.A.G.,
. . . For the Respondents

Writ Petition No. 10075 of 2011 with Writ Petition No. 3230 of 2014.
 
JUDGMENT
Md. Moinul Islam Chowdhury, J:
 
These two Rules have been issued by this Court involving the similar factual aspects and laws therefore, these two Rules are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.

At the instance of the Writ Petitioner, Md. Abdur Razzaque, in the Writ Petition No. 10075 of 2011 the Rule was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the Nationalized Colleges Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff Absorption Rules, 2000, should not be declared to be ultra vires the Constitution of Bangladesh and as to why the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should not be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner with all service benefits with effect from 22.12.1994 from the date of his respective appointment on ad-hoc basis in pursuance to the notification dated 22.01.1995 (Annexure-E), as per the Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff of Nationalized College (Directorate of Public Instruction) Absorption Rules, 1981.

At the instance of the Writ Petitioners, Md. Mizanur Rahman and others, the Rule in Writ Petition No. 3230 of 2014 was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the provisions of Rule 6(5) and Rule 7 of the Nationalized Colleges Teacher and Non-Teaching Staff Absorption Rule, 2000 should not be declared to be ultra vires to the Constitution of Bangladesh and further as to why the respondents should not be directed to regularize the service of the petitioners with all service benefits from the date of their appointment on ad-hoc basis dated 14.09.2006 with effect from 03.07.2006 and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this court may seem fit and proper.

The relevant facts for disposal of the Rule in Writ Petition No. 10075 of 2011, inter alia, are that the petitioner after obtaining B.Sc. (Hons) in Chemistry in the year of 1982 from the Rajshahi University and M.Sc. in Chemistry in the year of 1983 from the Rajshahi University was appointed as a Lecturer on 01.09.1986 in the Meherpur Mohila College, Kushtia. While the petitioner was acting as the Lecturer the respondent No. 1, Ministry of Education requested the respondent No. 3, the Director General, Directorate of Secondary and High Education to submit an inspection report of the said College (the College) for the purpose of nationalization vide a letter bearing Memo No. শাঃ১৮/৯-৪/৯১/৫৩৯-শিক্ষা dated 23.07.1992. The respondent No. 1 nationalized the College through a notification bearing Memo No. শাঃ -৯/৯-১২/৯২/শিক্ষা dated 10.07.1994 and the required number of posts were created for the teachers in the said College by the respondent No. 1 on 22.12.1994.

On 22.01.1995 the respondent No. 1, Ministry of Education by publishing a notification bearing Memo No. শা-৯/৯-১২/৯২/শিক্ষা appointed the petitioner and others as the Lecturers on ad-hoc basis to be effective their appointments from the date of creation of the posts on 22.12.1994 under the provision of Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff of Nationalized College (Directorate of Public Instruction) Absorption Rules, 1981 in the said Meherpur Government Mohila College. Thereafter, the Public Service Commission (PSC) recommended for regularizing the petitioners in their services under the provision of Rule 4 of Absorption Rules, 1981. Despite the above recommendation by the Public Service Commission the respondent No. 1, the Ministry of Education by publishing a notification bearing Memo No. শাঃ৯/৪-১/২০০০/২৯৪-শিক্ষা dated 16.03.2003 regularized the service of the petitioner under the provision of Rule 6(5) of the Nationalized Colleges Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff Absorption Rules, 2000 instead of under the Absorption Rules, 1981 because a lecturer in a Nationalized College shall be appointed on ad-hoc basis after fulfillment of the required conditions provided under Rule 5 of the Absorption Rules, 1981 and the Rules 3,4 and 5 of the Absorption Rules, 1981. Moreover, the Rule 8 of the said Absorption Rules, 1981 also provided that seniority of a Lecturer shall be determined on the basis of counting his/her effective service of his period of job in the Non-Government or Private College. Challenging the provision of Rule 6(5) of the Absorption Rules, 2000 and also challenging the application of wrong law in case of the petitioner and further more challenging the regularization of the petitioner vide letter dated 16.03.2003 (Annexure-F of the Writ Petition) under the wrong provision of law this Writ Petition was filed and the Rule in Writ Petition No. 10075 of 2011 was issued.

The relevant facts for disposal of the Rule in Writ Petition No. 3230 of 2014, inter alia, are that the petitioners (20 in numbers) have been appointed in Moheshpur Degree College at Zenaidah. The petitioner No. 1, Md. Mizanur Rahman obtained B.A. (Hons) in 1981 and M.A. in Philosophy in 1982 securing 2nd Class from the University of Rajshahi. He was appointed in the College on 01.09.1984 and promoted to the post of Assistant Professor. After the nationalization the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the College.

The petitioner No. 2, Hafiz Amir Hossain Khandakar obtained B.A. in the year of 1982 and M.A. in Islamic Studies in 1984 securing First Class First from the `University of Dhaka. He was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree college as a lecturer and he joined in the said College on 01.10.1988. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The petitioner No. 3, Shaikh Ismail Hossain obtained B.Sc. (Hons.) in the year of 1981 and M.Sc. in Zoology in 1982 securing Upper 2nd Class from the University of Rajshahi. He was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree as a lecturer and he joined in the said College on 01.10.1988. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The Petitioner No. 4, Sujit Kumar Sikder obtained B.A. (Hons) in the year of 1986 and M.A. in English in 1987 securing 2nd Class from the University of Jahangirnagar. He was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a lecturer and he joined in the said College on 02.11.1991. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The petitioner No. 5, S.M. Shahjahan obtained B.A. (Hons) in the year of 1982 and M.A. in Sociology in 1983 securing upper 2nd Class from the University of Rajshahi. He was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a Lecturer and he joined in the said College on 01.06.1992. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 3.07.2006) in the said College.

The Petitioner No. 6, Md. Emdadul Haque obtained B.A. (Hons) in the year of 1984 and M.A. in English in 1985 securing 2nd Class from the University of Rajshahi. He was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a Lecturer and he joined in the said College on 06.06.1992. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The Petitioner No. 7, Md. Anisuzzaman obtained B.Com. (Hons) in the year of 1984 and M.Com. in Marketing in 1985 securing 2nd Class from the University of Dhaka. He was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a Lecturer and he joined in the said College on 02.01.1993. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The Petitioner No. 8, Md. Rahamoth Ali obtained B.Sc. (Hons) in the year of 1997 and M. Sc. in Zoology in 1998 securing 2nd Class from the Jagannath University College, Dhaka. He was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a Lecturer and he joined in the said College on 30.09.2002. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The petitioner No. 9, Sabina Nasrin obtained B.Sc. (Hons) in the year of 1998 and M.Sc. in Botany in 1999 securing 2nd Class from the Government M.M. College, Jessore. She was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a Lecturer and she joined in the said College on 17.10.2002. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The petitioner No. 10, Hossin Mohammad Shamim obtained B.Sc. (Hons) in the year of 1995 and M.Sc. in Zoology in 1986 securing 1st Class from the Government Jagannath College, Dhaka. He was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a Lecturer and he joined in the said College on 30.09.1992. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The Petitioner No. 11, Md. Ruhul Amin obtained B.Sc. (Hons) in the year of 1997 and M.Sc. in Mathematics in 1997 securing 2nd Class from the Mohammadpur Kendriya College, Dhaka. He was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a Lecturer and he joined in the said College on 30.09.1992. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 3.07.2006) in the said College.

The Petitioner No. 12, Md. Tawhidul Islam obtained B.A. (Hons) in the year of 1999 and M.A. in Islamic Studies in 2000 securing 2nd Class from the Islamic University Kushtia. He was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a Lecturer and he joined in the said College on 20.09.2003. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The Petitioner No. 13, Moha. Motiar Rahman obtained B.A. (Hons) in the year of 1999 and M.A. in English in 2000 securing 2nd Class from the Islamic University Kushtia. He was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a Lecturer and he joined in the said College on 20.09.2003. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The Petitioner No. 14, Md. Nazmul Hassan obtained B.A. B.Sc. (Hons) in the year of 1998 and M.Sc. in Mathematics in securing 2nd Class from the Government M.M. College, Jessore. He was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a Lecturer and he joined in the said College on 30.09.1992. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The Petitioner No. 15, Pali Parvin obtained B.Sc. (Hons) in the year of 1998 and M.Sc. in Geography in the year of 1999 securing 2nd Class from the Government M.M. College, Jessore. She was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a Lecturer and she joined in the said College on 30.09.1992. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The Petitioner No. 16, Manashee Rani obtained B.Sc. (Hons) in the year of 1998 and M.Sc. in Botany in the year of 1999 securing 1st Class from the Government M.M. College, Jessore. She was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a Lecturer and he joined in the said College on 30.09.1992. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The Petitioner No. 17, Md. Hafizur Rahman obtained B.Sc. (Hons) in the year of 1998 and M.Sc. in Physics in the year of 1999 securing 2nd Class from the University of Rajshahi. He was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a Lecturer and he joined in the said College on 30.09.1992. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The Petitioner No. 18, Md. Abdus Samad obtained B.Sc. (Hons) in the year of 1997 and M.Sc. in Chemistry in the year of 1998 securing 1st Class from the University of Dhaka. He was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a Lecturer and he joined in the said College on 30.09.1992. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The Petitioner No. 19, Muhammad Abdul Muyeed obtained B.A. (Hons) in the year of 1983 and M.A. in Arabic in the year of 1984 securing 1st Class from the University of Rajshahi. He was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a Lecturer and he joined in the said College on 01.06. 1992. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 01.06.1992 to 02.07.2006 as a lecturer of Islamic Studies. After nationalization of the said college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad hoc basis 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The Petitioner No 20, Md. Rafiqul Islam obtained B.A. (Hons) in the year of 1991 and M.A. in History in the year of 1992 securing Upper 2nd Class from the University of Rajshahi. He was appointed in the Maheshpur Degree College as a Lecturer and he joined in the said College on 20.09.1992. After the nationalization of the college he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 (with effect from 03.07.2006) in the said College.

The respondent No. 1, Ministry of Education, decided to nationalize the Moheshpur Degree College Zheinaidah (the College) and asked the respondent No. 5, the Director General, Directorate of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Dhaka to prepare an investigation report through a letter dated 24.06.2004. Accordingly a report was submitted by the respondent No. 5 on 06.07.2004. The respondent No.1, the Government of Bangladesh vide notification No. শিক্ষা /শাঃ ৯/বিবিধ-২২/২০০৪ dated 03.01.2005 nationalized the College with effect from 10.07.2004 by issuing a letter dated 03.07.2006. The office of the respondent No. 1 created required numbers of post as the teachers and the petitioners were included in the said list.

After being nationalized the respondent No. 1 published a notification dated 14.09.2006 appointed the petitioners and others as the Lecturers of the college on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 to give effect of the appointed from the date of creation for the post which is 03.07.2006 as per provision of the Nationalized Colleges Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff Absorption Rules, 2000 (come into effect from 01.02.1978). As per the provision of law the Public Service Commission recommended the name of the petitioners for regularizing their services and forwarded the same to the respondent No. 1, Ministry of Education, through its letter bearing Memo No. বাসককস/ইউ-৯/নিয়মিতকরণ-৩/২০০৮/১৫ dated 19.02.2009 (Annexure-H of the Writ Petition).The petitioners have waited for at least 7 years after the ad-hoc appointment in the post and 4 years after the recommendation by the PSC. On 24.10.2013 by a notification published by the respondent No. 1 regularized the petitioners services in the respective posts as per provision under Rule 6(5) of the Absorption Rules, 2000 bearing Memo No. শিম/শাঃ ৮/১৪ (নিয়মিত)-১/২০০৮/ dated 24.10.2013 on ad-hoc basis in the year of 2006 instead applying the law under the Teachers and Non Teaching Staff of Nationalized College (Directorate of Public Instruction) Absorption Rules, 1981.

The petitioner was appointed in the year of 1995 in W.P. No. 10075 of 2011, the petitioners were appointed in the year of 2006 in W.P. No. 3230 of 2014 respectively and their names were recommended by the PSC in order to regularize their services but the respondents issued the letters regularizing their names after nearly 7 years from the dated of the recommendation accorded by the PSC, as such, the petitioners filed these two Writ Petitions challenging the said regularization order under the provision of law and the Rules were issued thereupon.

Mr. Shafique Ahmed, the learned Senior Counsel appearing with the learned Advocates Mr. Mahbub Shafique and K.M. Hafizul Alam for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10075 of 2011 submits that Rule 3 of the Teacher and Non-Teaching Staff of Nationalized College (Directorate of Public Instruction) Absorption Rules, 1981 provides that a teacher of a nationalized college shall, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions of Rule 5, be appointed on ad-hoc basis as a Lecturer or Assistant Professor under the Directorate of Public Instruction accordingly the petitioners being absorbed in the government service by way of nationalization of their respective colleges therefore they are all entitled to be counted their seniority from the taking over of the College, as such, the Rule should be made absolute.

The learned Advocate further submits that Rule 7(4) of the Bangladesh Civil Service Recruitment Rules, 1981 provides that the Government Employee shall be made permanent from the date of his appointment in service, is such view of the matter the petitioner is also entitled to become permanent and regularized from the date of his appointment, as such, he prays to make the Rule absolute.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing with the learned Advocates Mr. Mahabub Shafique and K.M. Hafizul Alam further submits in Writ Petition No. 3230 of 2014 that the petitioners were appointed on ad-hoc basis on 14.09.2006 with effect from 03.07.2006 as such the petitioners have a legitimate expectation to be regularized from the date of ad-hoc appointment hence the date of regularization of the petitioners from the date of office order of regularization have been made without lawful authority and of no legal effect, as such, the Rule should be made absolute.

The learned Advocate further submits that the provisions of Rule 6(5) and Rule 7 of the Nationalized Colleges Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff Absorption Rules, 2000 provide no time frame and criteria or guidelines to regularize the ad hoc appointed teachers as such there is every scope to use the said provisions arbitrarily, discriminatorily and malafide hence the provisions of Rule 6(5) and Rule 7 of the said Rule, 2000 are ultra vires to Article 27 and Article 29 of the Constitution of People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

The learned Advocate further submits that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis on 14.09.2006 with effect from 03.07.2006 but their services have been regularized after 7 (seven) years of ad hoc appointment, particularly on 24.10.2013, and their seniority will be counted after 7(seven) years of their ad hoc appointment, i.e. from the date of regularization, as per provisions of Rule 6(5) and Rule 7 of the Nationalized Colleges Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff Absorption Rules, 2000 as such the provisions of Rule 6(5) and Rule 7 of the said Rule, 2000 are arbitrary and discriminatory to Article 27 and Article 29 of the Constitution of People’s Republic of Bangladesh, as such, the Rule should be made absolute.

The Rule has been opposed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 5 by filing two separate Affidavit-in-Oppositions.
In Writ Petition No. 10075 of 2011, the Affidavit –in-Opposition filed by the respondent No. 5 it is stated that the service of the petitioner was regularized as per law of the land and no illegality had been committed in regularizing the petitioner in service under the relevant provisions of the 2000 Rules. Rule 6(5) of the Rules 2000 provides that Teachers/staffs shall be regularized from date of regularization and no retrospective effect is given under 2000 rules, as such, the Rule is liable to be discharged.

It is further stated that the petitioner was regularized in service as per the existing Rules, 2000 since the Rules, 1981 is no longer in operation therefore the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the said repealed Rules, 1981. The petitioner was regularized as per provision of the Rules, 2000 and hence he was regularized in accordance with law. The petitioners cannot challenge the regularization as per provision the Rules of 1981 since the said Rule has been repealed and the Rules, 2000 was given effect from 1978 and the petitioners services also fall under the Rules, 2000. The absorption rules was made effective from 01.02.1978 and as per Rule 9(1) of the said Rules the Absorption Rules 1998 was cancelled. He also submits that Absorption Rules, 2000 clearly stipulates that the petitioner shall be regularized from date of their regularization and their service shall be counted from the date of their regularization therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Rules, 1981, as such, the Rule is liable to be discharged.

In Writ Petition No. 2330 of 2014, the respondent No. 5 filed an Affidavit in Opposition wherein it is stated that the posts of the petitioners were created as per Absorption Rules, 2000 since the college was nationalized after 2000 and as such provisions of Absorption Rules, 2000 shall be applicable for them, as such, the Rule should be discharged.

It is further stated that regularization of the petitioners were made as per correct provisions of law. There is no reason that the petitioners services shall be regularized as per Absorption Rules, 1981 since they were never within the ambit of Absorption Rules, 1981 which is applicable for the teachers and staffs whose colleges were nationalized before 1998, when 1998 Rules came into effect replacing 1981 Rules.

Mr. Goutam Kumar Roy, the learned Deputy Attorney General appearing along with Mr. Md. Yunus the learned Assistant Attorney General submits that these two Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the provision of Rule 6(5) of the Absorption Rules, 2000 being virus of the Constitution of Bangladesh and also seeking a direction for regularizing the petitioners’ services from the date of ad hoc appointment in the respective petitioners but the Rule 6(5) of the Absorption Rules, 2000 is clearly provided that a Lecturer in a nationalized college could only be entitled on regularization of his/her service but not from the date of appointment on ad-hoc basis, as such, these Rules merit no consideration from this court as these are beyond the requirement of the existing law, as such, the Rule should be discharged. The learned Deputy Attorney General further submits that the petitioners were regularized by the respondents after a proper scrutiny of the individual petitioners service record and performance but the petitioners claim of regularization from the date of ad-hoc appointment have no legal basis, therefore, these Rules are liable to be discharged.

The learned Deputy Attorney General further submits that the petitioners have been regularized by the orders passed by the respondent No. 1, as such, the petitioners are the servants of the republic, therefore, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution because the petitioners have efficacious remedy under Article 117 of the Constitution for pursuing the matter before the Administrative Tribunal thus these Rules are not maintainable under the provision of existing law of the country, as such, he prays to discharge the Rule.

Considering the above submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and also considering the Writ Petitions (Writ Petition No. 10075 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 3230 of 2014) along with Annexures therein, and also considering the Affidavit-in-Oppositions filed by the respondent No. 5, it appears to us that the Petitioner Md. Abdur Razzaque in the Writ Petition No. 10075 of 2011 was appointed in Non-government College, namely, Mosheshpur Mohila Degree College, Kushtia on 01.09.1986 as a Lecturer in the subject of Chemistry. The said College was nationalized from the date of 15.12.1992 by an order passed on 10.07.1994. The petitioner thereafter was appointed as the Lecturer from the date of 22.12.1995 by an order dated 22.01.1995 on an ad-hoc basis. The petitioner service was regularized by the respondent No. 1 on 16.03.2003 after a required recommendation of the Public Servant Commission (PSC).

In this Writ Petition the questions are what should be operating law as per the petitioner is concerned and also whether the order of regularization of the petitioner service after nearly a period of 9 years i.e. the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis with effect from 22.12.1994 but the petitioner service was regularized on 16.03.2003 under the provision of Rule 9(5) of the Absorption Rules, 2000.
 
To answer the above two questions we have examined the relevant laws under the Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff of Nationalized College (Directorate of Public Instruction) Absorption Rules, 1981 as well as the provision of Rule 6(5) of the Absorption Rules, 2000 to be affective from 01.02.1978. From the above given facts it is clear that the petitioner was appointed on the ad-hoc basis with effect from 22.12.1994 and the operating law at that moment of time was the Absorption Rule 1981. In this regard we have to consider the provision under Rules 3,4 and 5 of the Absorption Rules, 1981 which reads as follows:-

“3. Ad-hoc appointment of a teacher :(1) a Teacher of a nationalized college shall, subject to the fulfillment of the condition or rule 5, be appointed on ad-hoc basis as a Lecturer or Assistant Professor under the Directorate of Public Instruction.

Provided that no teacher shall be appointed on ad-hoc basis as an Assistant Professor unless he has at least a Second Class Master’s degree in the relevant subject and has at least 7 years of effective service.

2. A Lecturer or Assistant Professor appointed on ad-hoc basis shall be entitled to such pay and allowances in their respective seals of pay as may be determined by the Government.

4. Regularization of ad-hoc teachers:- (1) A teacher appointed on ad-hoc basis under rule 3 shall be appointed on regular basis through the Commission either by interview or otherwise as may decided by the Commission.

(2). No teacher shall be eligible for regular appointment as Lecturer unless he has at least Second Class Master’s degree in the relevant subject:

Provided that the Commission may recommend a teacher having Third Class Master’s Degree in the relevant subject for regular appointment on his obtaining at least Second Class Master’s degree in the relevant subject within a period of 3 years from the date of communication of such recommendation to the teacher, failing which his ad-hoc appointment shall be terminated by the appointing authority.

5. Eligibility : (1) No person shall be eligible for appointment under those rules if he-
a) is not a citizen of Bangladesh or a permanent resident of Bangladesh; and
b) is married to, or has entered into a promise of marriage with, person who is not a citizen of Bangladesh.
(2) No regular appointment shall be made under these rules unless-
(a) a person selected for appointment by the Commission is declared by a Medical Board or a Medical Officer set up or, as the case may be, authorized by the Director of Health Services to be medically fit for such appointment, and
(b) the antecedents of the person so selected have been verified through appropriate agency and found to be such as do not render him unsuitable for appointment in the services of the Republic.”
 
As per the above provisions of the Rules, 1981 the petitioner can only be appointed on ad-hoc basis in the year of 1994 under the prevailing law which was the Absorption Rules 1981. Despite the fact the petitioner was regularized on 16.03.2003, therefore, we can take a decision that the operating law in the case of the present petitioner shall be the laws prevailing on the date of his appointment on ad-hoc basis. In this regard Rule 3 of the Absorption Rules, 1981 provides appointment on ad-hoc basis in a nationalized college subject to fulfillment of the conditions of Rule 5 mentioned above. It is clear to us that the petitioners were appointed under the provision of Rule 3 along with Rule 5 which was the final appointment and the operating law was the Absorption Rules, 1981.
 
In writ petition No. 10075 of 2011 the respondent issued an office order dated 22.01.1995 (Annexure E) appointing the petitioner, Md. Abdur Razzak at serial No. 20 and also containing the process of regularizing in the following terms:

“মে­হরপুর জেলার মে­হরপুর সরকারী মহিলা ক­লজ­ক জাতীয়করন করার প্রেক্ষি­ত উও্র ক­ল­জ কর্মরত বেসরকারী আম­লর নিন্মলিখিত শিক্ষকবৃন্দকে জাতীয়কৃত ক­ল­জর শিক্ষক ও অশিক্ষক কর্মচারী আত্তীকরণ বিধিমালা-১৯৮১ অনুসা­র পদ সৃষ্টির আ­দশ জারীর তারিখ ২২/১২/৯৪ইং হই­ত তাহা­দর না­মর পা­র্শ্ব বর্নিত বিষয় ও প­দ এড-হক ভিত্তি­ত নি­য়াগ করা হইলঃ-
 
ক্রমিক নং  শিক্ষ­কের নাম প­দের নাম বিষয়
০১ জনাব মুহম্মদ আবু বকর সিদ্দিকী প্রভাষক ইং­রজী
০২ জনাব ­মাহাঃ গাজী রহমান প্রভাষক  বাংলা
০৩ জনাব মোহাঃ আবুল কা­সম প্রভাষক ব্যবস্থাপনা
০৪ জনাব এ,বি,এম,আসাদুল হক প্রভাষক অর্থনীতি
০৫ মি­সস নুর জাহান বেগম প্রভাষক ভূ­গাল
০৬ জনাম ­মাঃ আব্দুল মজিদ প্রভাষক বাংলা
০৭ মি­সস অ­রারা ফ্যান্সি প্রভাষক সাধারন ইতিহাস
০৮ মোসাম্মৎ ছা­নায়ারা বেগম প্রভাষক দর্শন শাস্ত্র
০৯ মি­সস বিলকিস আও্রার সিদ্দিকা প্রভাষক দর্শন শাস্ত্র
১০ জনাব মোহাঃ আবুল হো­সন প্রভাষক অর্থনীতি
১১ জনাব নুর্রল আহ­মদ প্রভাষক ব্যবস্থাপনা
১২ জনাব মোঃ আজিজুল হক প্রভাষক রাষ্ট্রবিজ্ঞান
১৩ জনাব মোহাঃ আফতাব উদ্দিন প্রভাষক ইসঃইতিহাস
১৪ মি­সস অানজুমান আরা প্রভাষক হিসাব বিজ্ঞান
১৫ মি­সস শিরীন সুফিয়া খাতুন প্রভাষক সমাজ কল্যান
১৬ জনাব মোহাঃ আশরাফুল হক প্রভাষক জীব বিজ্ঞান (প্রানি বিদ্যা)
১৭ জনাব মোহাঃ আতিয়ার রহমান প্রভাষক রাষ্ট্র বিজ্ঞান
১৮ জনাব মোহাঃ আবদুর রহিম প্রভাষক হিসাব বিজ্ঞান
১৯ জনাব মোঃ আফতাব উদ্দীন প্রভাষক গনিত শাস্ত্র
২০ জনাব মোঃআব্দুর রাজ্জাক প্রভাষক রসায়ন
২১ জনাব জনাব মোহাঃ হাসানুজ্জামান প্রভাষক পদার্থ বিজ্ঞান
২২ জনাব মোহাঃ ইমান আলী প্রভাষক ইং­রেজী
 
 
বাংলা­দশ পাবলিক সার্ভিস কমিশ­নর সুপারিশ, যাথাযথ কর্তৃপ­ক্ষর নিকট হই­ত তাহা­দর প্রাক চরিত্র সম্প­র্ক স­ন্তোষজনক রি­পার্ট এবং স্বাস্থ্য সনদ প্রাপ্তি সা­পেক্ষে তাহাদিগ­কে চাকুরী­তে নিয়মিত করা হইবে।”
 
Regarding the 2nd question on delay of 9 years in regularizing the petitioners’ services, we have carefully considered the documents provided in the Writ Petition and also the contention made in the Affidavit-in-Opposition but we could not find any answer or any explanation from the record in this Writ Petition. We, therefore, sought assistance from the learned Deputy Attorney General as to the delay for 9 years in regularizing the petitioner, here again, the learned Deputy Attorney General could not provide us with any explanation for such a long period of time which is nearly 9 years. We have expressed our anxiety over the conduct of the respondents in handling of this petitioner’s case with utter carelessness and arbitrary. We also consider that the conduct on the part of the respondents made the petitioner a victim. Despite the provision of law under the Absorption Rule, 1981 which clearly mentioned that a teacher shall be appointed on an ad-hoc basis in a nationalized college if and only if he or she can satisfy Rule 5 when he/she is eligible to be appointed as a teacher. In the instant case the petitioner has satisfied all requirements to become eligible to get appointment in the post of lecturer in the year of 1994, therefore, the petitioner service should be considered from the date of ad-hoc appointment with effect from 22.12.1994 pursuant to the order dated 22.01.1991(Annexure-E of the Writ Petition) under the provision of the Absorption Rules, 1981.
 
Regarding the Writ Petition No. 3230 of 2014 the petitioners (20 in numbers) were originally appointed in the Mosheshpur Degree College in Jeinaidah by the order around the period of 1985 to 2003 as the Lecturers. After complying all the required academic qualification and other requirements for such appointment in the said Non-government/ Private College in the year of 2005.The said college was nationalized with effect from 10.07.2004 and the name of the College has been recorded as the Moheshpur Government Degree College. Regarding the appointment of the petitioners and all other teachers and non-teaching staffs the Government passed several orders including order for creating posts for Lecturer, Assistant Professor and other Teachers along with the Staffs for the Government Colleges. In course of time after creating posts in the aforesaid manner the petitioners were appointed on the ad-hoc basis by the notification dated 14.09.2006 (Annexure –G of the Writ Petition No. 3230 of 2014) also contains the provision of regularizations of their service under Rules, 2000 (come into effect 01.02.1978) which reads as follows:-
 
“ প্রজ্ঞাপন
ঝিনাইদহ জেলার ম­হেশপুর উপ­জলাধীন ম­হেশপুর ডিগ্রী কলেজটি­ক জাতীয়করণ করার প্রেক্ষি­ত উক্ত ক­লেজের জাতীয়|করণ পূর্বকা­লর নিন্মলিখিত ৩১ (একত্রিশ) জন শিক্ষক­ক জাতীয়করণকৃত ক­লজ শিক্ষক ও অ-শিক্ষক কর্মচারী আত্নীকরণ বিধিমালা-২০০০ এর বিধি ৩ এবং বিধি-৫ এ বর্ণিত বিধান মোতা­বক পদ সৃষ্টির তারিখ হ­ত তা­দর না­মর পার্শ্বে বর্নিত বিষয় ও প­দ এডহক ভিত্তি­ত নিয়োগদান করা হ­লাঃ
 
ক্রমিক নং প্রভাষক­দের নাম পদবী বিষয়
০১ ­মাঃ শফিকুল ইসলাম প্রভাষক বাংলা
০২ সুজিত কুমার সিকদার প্রভাষক ইং­রজী
০৩ ­মাঃ এমদাদুল হক প্রভাষক ইং­রজী
০৪ ­মাহাঃ মতিয়ার রহমান প্রভাষক ইং­রজী
০৫ ­মাঃ সামছুর রহমান প্রভাষক অর্থনীতি
০৬ ­মাঃ মিজানুর রহমান প্রভাষক অর্থনীতি
০৭ ­মাঃ রেজাউল করিম প্রভাষক রাষ্টবিজ্ঞান
০৮ এস,এম,শাহজাহান প্রভাষক সমাজ বিজ্ঞান
০৯ ­মাঃ মিজানুর রহমান প্রভাষক দর্শন
১০ ­মাঃ সহিদুল ইসলাম প্রভাষক দর্শন
১১ ­মাঃ আনিছুর রহমান প্রভাষক দর্শন
১২ সাহানারা আও্রার প্রভাষক ইতিহাস
১৩ ­মাঃ রফিকুল ইসলাম প্রভাষক ইতিহাস
১৪ হাফিজ আমীর হাসান  প্রভাষক ইসঃ স্টাডিজ
১৫ মুহাম্মদ আব্দুল মুয়ীদ প্রভাষক ইসঃ স্টাডিজ
১৬ ­মাহাঃ তাওহীদুল ইসলাম প্রভাষক ইসঃ স্টাডিজ
১৭ ­মাঃ ফরহাদ হো­সন প্রভাষক ইসঃ স্টাডিজ
১৮ পলি পারভীন প্রভাষক ভূ­গাল
১৯ ওুহাম্মদ আবু হানিফ প্রভাষক ভূ­গাল
২০ ­মাঃ আমির্রজ্জামান প্রভাষক হিসাব বিজ্ঞান
২১ ­মাঃ আব্দুর রশিদ প্রভাষক মা­র্কটিং
২২ মুহাঃ হাফিজুর রহমান প্রভাষক ব্যবসহাপনা
২৩ ­মাঃ শিপন আলী প্রভাষক পদার্থ বিদ্যা
২৪ ­মাঃ আব্দুস সামাদ প্রভাষক রসায়ন বিদ্যা
২৫ ­সখ ইসমাইল হো­সন প্রভাষক প্রানী বিদ্যা
২৬ ­হা­সন মুহাম্মদ শামীম প্রভাষক উদ্ভিদ বিদ্যা
২৭ ­মাঃ রহমত আলী প্রভাষক প্রানী বিদ্যা
২৮ মানষী রাণী প্রভাষক উদ্ভিদ বিদ্যা
২৯ সাবিনা নাসরিন প্রভাষক উদ্ভিদ বিদ্যা
৩০ ­মাঃ নাজমুল হাসন প্রভাষক গনিত
৩১ ­মাঃ র্রহুল আমিন প্রভাষক গণিত
 
০২ জাতীয়করনকৃত ক­লজ শিক্ষক ও অ-শিক্ষক কর্মচারী আত্নীকরণ বিধিমালা-২০০০ এর বিধি-৬-এ বর্ণিত বিধি মোতা­বক ও তাঁ­দর শারীরিক সুসহ্যতা, প্রাক চরিত্র সম্প­র্ক যথাযথ কর্তৃপ­ক্ষর স­ন্তোষজনক রি­পার্ট এবং বাংলা­দশ সরকার কর্মকমিশন সচিবাল­য়র সুপারিশ এর ভিওি­ত তাঁ­দর চাকুরী (এডহক নি­য়াগ) নিয়মিত করা হ­বে।”
 
The aforementioned notification contains in clause -2 that the above listed persons including the present petitioners shall be regularized on satisfying the requirement under Rule 6 of the Absorption Rules, 2000 subject to the satisfaction of their health, character and other reports as well as subject to the recommendation given by the Secretariat, of the Public Service Commission. As per the provision of Rule 6(1) of the Absorption Rules, 2000 the Public Service Commission provided its recommendation for all absorbed Lecturers including the present petitioners in the following terms(Annexure-H of the Writ Petition No. 3230 of 2014):-

“বিষয়ঃ- শিক্ষা মন্ত্রনাল­য়ের অধীন ঝিনাইদহ জেলার ম­হেশপুর সরকারী ডিগ্রী কলেজের এডহক ভিত্তি­ত নি­য়াগপ্রাপ্ত শিক্ষক­দর চাকুরী নিয়মিতকরণ প্রসং­গে

সূত্রঃ- শিক্ষা মন্ত্রনাল­য়ের ০৮/৯/২০০৮ খ্রিঃ তারি­খর শাঃ ৮/১৪(নিয়মিত)- ১/২০০৮/১৩০৬ নং এবং তৎপূর্ববর্তী পত্র সমূহ

উপযুক্তর বিষয় ও সূ­ত্রাক্ত প­ত্রর বরা­ত জানা­না যা­চ্ছ যে, শিক্ষা মন্ত্রনাল­য়ের অধীন ঝিনাইদহ জেলার জাতীয়করণকৃত ম­হশপুর সরকারী ডিগ্রী ক­ল­জর বিভিন্ন বিষ­য়র প্রভাষক প­দ এডহক ভিত্তি­ত নি­য়াগপ্রাপ্ত শিক্ষক­দর চাকুরী নিয়মিতকর­ণর বিষয় বি­বচনার জন্য প্রাপ্ত কাগজপত্র সমূহ কমিশন সমী­প উপস্থাপন করা হ­য়ছিল। উপসিহত কাগজপ­ত্রর ভিত্তি­ত ম­হশপুর সরকারী ডিএ্রী ক­ল­জর এডহক ভিত্তি­ত নি­য়াগপ্রাপ্ত নিন্মলিখিত ২৭ (সাতাশ) জন শিক্ষ­কর এডহক চাকুরী তা­র না­মর পা­শ বর্নিত প­দ নিয়মিতকর­ণর জন্য কমিশন সুপারিশ ক­র­ছঃ-
 
ক্রমিক নং   নাম ও পদবী সুপারিশকৃত প­দর নাম
১ জনাব মোঃ শফিকুল ইসলাম,   প্রভাষক  বাংলা
২ জনাব সুজিত কুমার সিকদার,   ঐ        ইং­রজী
৩ জনাব ­মাঃ এমদাদুল হক,       ঐ        ঐ
৪ জনাব ­মাহাঃ মতিয়ার রহমান   ঐ        ঐ
৫ জনাম ­মাঃ শামছুর রহমান,     ঐ        অর্থনীতি
৬ জনাম ­মাঃ মিজানুর রহমান,    ঐ        ঐ
৭ জনাম ­মাঃ রেজাউল করিম      ঐ         রাষ্টবিজ্ঞান
৮ জনাম এস,এম শাহজাহান,      ঐ        সমাজ বিজ্ঞান
৯ জনাম ­মাঃ মিজানুর রহমান,    ঐ        দর্শন
১০ জনাব ­মাঃ সহিদুল ইসলাম,    ঐ        ঐ
১১ জনাম ­মাঃ আনিছুর রহমান,   ঐ        ঐ
১২ ­বগম শাহনারা আও্রার          ঐ        ঐ
১৩ জনাব মোঃ রক্ষিকুল ইসলাম, ঐ        ঐ
১৪ জনাব হাফিজ আমীর হাসান,  ঐ ইসলামিক ষ্টাডিজ
১৫ জনাব মুমাম্মদ আব্দুল মুয়ীদ,   ঐ        ঐ
১৬ জনাম মোহাঃ আওহীদুল ইসলাম,       ঐ         ঐ
১৭জনাব ­মাঃ ফরহাদ হো­সন,      ঐ        ভু­গাল
১৮জনাব মোহাঃ আনিছুজজামান ঐ        মা­র্কটিং
১৯ জনাব মোঃ আব্দুর রশিদ,      ঐ         ব্যবসহাপনা
২০ জনাব মুহাঃ হাফিজুর রহমান, ঐ পদার্থ বিজ্ঞান
২১ জনাব মোঃথ আব্দুস সামাদ,   ঐ        রসায়ন বিদ্যা
২২জনাব সেখ ইসমাইল হো­সন,    ঐ         প্রাণী বিদ্যা
২৩ জনাব হো­সন মুহাম্মদ শামীম, ঐ        ঐ
২৪ জনাব মোঃ রহমত আলী       ঐ        ঐ
২৫ বেগম মানষী রানী   ঐ         উদ্ভিদ বিদ্যা
২৬ জনাব মোঃ নাজমুল হাসান,   ঐ        গণিত
২৭ জনাব মোঃ র্রহুল আমিন,      ঐ        ঐ

From the above two documents one from the office of the respondent No. 1 and another from the Public Service Commission passing the orders for ad-hoc appointment to the petitioners on the basis of the said ad-hoc appointment the respondent No. 1 and Public Service Commission (PSC) passed its recommendation as required by Rule 6(1) of the Absorption Rule,2000. It should be mentioned here that Annexure-G of the writ petition has been passed in order to comply with the Rule 5 of the Absorption Rules, 2000 come into effect on 01 February, 1978 which reads as follows:-
 
“৫। এডহক নি­য়া­গ বাধা-নি­ষধঃ- কোন ব্যক্তি এই বিধিমালার অধীন এডহক নি­য়া­গর জন্য যোগ্য হই­বন না, যদি-
(ক) তিনি বাংলা­দ­শর নাগরিক অথবা স্থায়ী বাসিন্ধা না, হন;
(খ) তিনি বাংলা­দ­শর নাগরিক ন­হন এমন কোন ব্যক্তিকে বিবাহ করিয়া থা­কন অথবা বিবাহ করিবার জন্য প্রতিশ্র্রতিবদ্ধ হইয়া থা­কন;
(গ) স্বাস্থ্য অধিদপ্তরের মহাপরিচালক কর্তৃক এতদু­দ্দ্য­শ্য গঠিত মেডিক্যাল বোর্ড অথবা তাহার নিকট হই­ত ক্ষমতাপ্রাপ্ত কোন মেডিক্যাল অফিসার সংশ্লিষ্ট প­দর জন্য তাহা­ক স্বাসহ্যগতভা­ব যোগ্য বলিয়া প্রত্যায়ন না ক­রন;
(ঘ) যথা­যাগ্য কর্তৃপ­ক্ষর বা সংসহা কর্তৃক উও্র ব্যও্রির পূর্ব কার্যকলাপ তদ­ন্তের ফ­ল দেখা যায় যে, তিনি প্রজাতন্ত্রের চাকুরী­ত নি­য়োগের অ­যোগ্য;
(ঙ) এডহক নি­য়া­গর তারি­খ তাহার বয়স সরকারী কর্মচারী অবসর গ্রহ­নর বয়­স বেশী হয়"
 
We have carefully considered the above administrative order and the provisions under the Rules, 2000 which lead us to consider that a Lecturer appointed in a private Non-government College can be a Government Employee as a Lecturer on transferring the College in a Nationalized Government College. We also consider the context in which this provision was introduced by the People’s Republic of Bangladesh under the provision of Articles 133 and 140(2) of the Constitution of Bangladesh by consultation with the Public Service Commission and the whole Absorption Rules is to adjust or absorb teachers from the Non-government College/School into the Government College/School. Rule 5 of the Rules, 2000 came into effect on 01.02.1997, according to us, provides the processes for first scanning for including the Non-government teachers into Government-teachers subject to the recommendation of the Public Service Commission in order to make the new absorbed teachers or Lecturers to be included into the cadre service as the government employees. As part of the said scanning process a candidate either as a Lecturer or as a staff has to satisfy the 5 requirements under the said Rule 5 including character, conduct health condition, marital status and the age of retirement. In the instant case the petitioners were appointed on the ad-hoc basis after fulfilling the above requirement of law.
 
The 2nd form of scanning of a teacher and non-teaching staff under the provision laid down in Rule 6 of the Absorption Rule 2000 which reads as follows:-

“৬। চাকুরী নিয়মিতকরণ ইত্যাদিঃ (১) Bangladesh Public Service Commission (Constitution) Regulations, 1979 এবং প্র­যাজ্য অন্যান্য আইন অনুসা­র কমিশ­নর আওতাভুক্ত প­দ, কমিশ­নর সুপারিশ ব্যতীত, নি­য়াগকারী কর্তৃপক্ষ কোন এডহক নি­য়াগ নিয়মিত করি­ব না।
(২) এডহকভিত্তি­ত নি­য়াগপ্রাপ্ত ব্যক্তির প্র­য়োজনীয় যোগ্যতা থাকি­ল এবং তাহার এডহক নি­য়াগ পরবর্তী চাকুরীকাল স­ন্তোষজনক হই­ল কমিশন উহার সুপারিশ প্রদান করি­বে।
(৩) কমিশন­নর আওতাবহির্ভূত প­দ এডহক নি­য়াগ প্র­য়াজনীয় যোগ্যতারভিত্তি­ত নি­য়াগকারী কর্তৃপক্ষ নিয়মিত করি­বে।
(৪) কোন ব্যক্তির এডহক নি­য়াগ নিয়মিত করা না হই­ল তিনি নি­য়াগকারী কর্তৃপ­ক্ষর সিদ্ধান্ত অনুসা­রে আর চাকুরী­ত বহাল থাকি­বনা, ত­ব প্র­য়াজনীয় যোগ্যতা থাকি­ল এডহকভিত্তি­ত নি­য়াজিত শিক্ষক­ক সরকার ক্যাডারবহির্ভূত প্রভাষক প­দ নি­য়াজিত রাখি­ত পারি­ব এবং তাহার চাকুরীর শর্তাবলী সরকার কর্তৃক নির্ধারিত হই­ব।
(৫) এই বিধি অনুসা­র কোন ব্যও্রির এডহক নি­য়াগ নিয়মিত করা হই­ল সংশ্লিষ্ট প­দ তাহার আত্মীকরণ সম্পন্ন হই­ব এবং শিক্ষ­কর ক্ষে­ত্র নিয়মিতকর­ণর আ­দশ প্রদা­নর তারি­খ তিনি ক্যাডারভূক্ত হইয়া­ছন বলিয়া গন্য হই­বন। ”    
 
Having qualified under the Rule 5 the petitioners became subject to scanning under the above provision, in particular, Rule 6(1) which contains that no teacher can be appointed on ad-hoc basis or can be regularized without an approval or of recommendation from the Public Service Commission under the provision of Public Service Commission (consultation) Regulation, 1979. From Annexure-H of the writ petition mentioned above contains the approval /recommendation in favour of the present petitioners to be appointed and regularized in their respective posts as Lecturers. Rule 6(5) of the Absorption Rules at the same time contained that a person absorption process would be completed after being appointed on ad-hoc basis and also after being regularized and, if those are satisfied, a teacher can be encadred on regularizing his service. In the above provision of Rule 5, Rule 6(1) and Rule 6(5) of this law require encadrement of a teacher after the absorption in his post on regularizing his post.
 
Now, the question is when a teacher should be considered as absorbed in his post under the provision of Absorption Rules 2000. To answer the said question we have carefully examined Rules 5, 6 and 7 of the Absorption Rules, 2000 and we have to read all these Rules together in order to interpret the law which have created on the foundation to give benefit of the educational system as a whole by providing teachers and non-teaching staffs of a Non-government Private College converting into a Government College. The whole purpose is to enhance the standard and facilities of the teaching thousands of students to get their best education process. In this regard we should mention that government has introduced Rules, 2000 but given effect from 1978 not to remove or discard a teacher or Lecturer from a Non-government Private College but to include them inasmuch as a College required. These two Rules were issued challenging the legality of Rule 6(5) of the Absorption Rules, 2000 as being virus to the Constitution of Bangladesh but during the hearing of this Rule, the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners expressed their desire not to press this part of the Rule but to given emphasis upon their submissions on seeking a direction to regularize the service of the petitioners with all service benefits from the date of their appointment on ad-hoc basis from 03.07.2006. Regarding the 2nd portion of the Rule issued by this court in Writ Petition we consider that the petitioners were given appointment on the ad-hoc basis with effect from 03.07.2006 by order dated 14.09.2006 and the petitioners have been providing their services in the College as the Lecturers and or Assistant Professors on the basis of the aforementioned appointment by the Annexure-G dated 14.09.2006 which contains that the petitioners will be regularized as soon as their appointment would be recommended by the Public Service Commission as per required Rule 6(1) of the Absorption Rules, 2000 which is in operation from 01.02.1978. It appears from the record that the petitioners appointment were recommended by the PSC on 19.02.2009 containing in Annexure-E of the Writ Petition. When the aforesaid two steps have been taken by the respondents including the respondent No. 1 in respect of the services of the petitioners the question naturally arises why the respondents have to be waited for regularizing the petitioners appointment until on 24.10.2013 which is 7 years after the ad-hoc appointment and 4 years from the required recommendation by the PSC. In this regard we sought submissions from the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. In response to our queries the learned Advocates for the petitioners stated that the concerned official even after knowing the required laws as mentioned above as appointment of the petitioners delayed their response in order to cause suffering to the petitioners which can be termed as malice in law. In the case of on English jurisdiction Viscount Haldane L.C in the case of Sharer v Shiehad (1914) Ac. 808 and in the case of Bangladesh jurisdiction Dr. Nazrul Islam V Bangladesh 1981 BLD (AD) 140 the phrase of Malice in Law have been described in the following terms:

“Between the malice in fact and malice in law there is a broad distinction which is not peculiar to any particular system of jurisprudence. A person who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention of the law is not allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind; he is taken to know the law, and he must act within the law. He may, therefore, be guilty of malice in law, although so far as the state of his mid is concerned, he acts ignorantly, and in that sense innocently. Malice of fact is quite an ignorantly, and in that sense innocently. Malice of fact if quite a different thing; it means a actual malicious intention on the part of the person who has done the wrongful act, and it may be in proceedings based on wrongs independent of contract, a very material ingredient in the question whether a valid case of actions can be stated. ”

When question of malice in law arises this court can consider a writ petition even the petitioner are in the service of the Republic. In reply to our queries the learned Assistant Attorney General simply said that the government officials take decision after complying all the required formalities by the respective officers, as such, such a long period of time might have been consumed but we are surprised and expressed our anxiety over the submission made by the learned Deputy Attorney General because a citizen cannot be led to suffer for the ignorance or indifference or even carelessness on the part of any servant of the republic. We, therefore, consider for non-action on the part of the officers of the respondents have committed malice in law because they were aware that after recomm-endation of the Public Service Commission (PSC) they should have given a decision as to the appointment and regularization of the petitioners services. We also consider that the petitioner should not suffer for inaction or the fault on the part of the respondents. As the learned Advocate for the petitioner made submission not to press part of Rule regarding the vires in law, we are not passing any decision thereabout.

Finally we consider that after nationalization of a non- government College the respondents must act promptly in order to give peace of mind to the Lecturers or Assistant Professors who became employees of the government by virtue of the Absorption Rules, 2000 which came into effect on 01.02.1978. Rule 6(5) validly required regularization for encadre of a teacher or lecturer but the malicious inaction on the part of the respondents is to be declared illegal, therefore, without lawful authority.

We, therefore, find merit in part of each of the Rules.

In the result, the Rule issued in Writ Petition No. 10075 of 2011 and the Rule issued in Writ Petition No. 3230 of 2014 are made absolute in part.

The respondents are hereby directed to regularize the service of the petition in W.P. No. 10075 of 2011 from 22.12.1994 under Rules, 1981 and also the petitioners in W.P. No. 3230 of 2014 from 03.07.2006 under Rules, 2000 which came effect from 01.02.1978 within 3(three) months from the receipt of this judgment and order.

The office is directed to communicate the judgment and order to the persons concerned immediately.

 Ed.