IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
Writ Petition No. 10225 of 2020. In the matter of:
An application under article 102 (2) of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
-And- In the matter of: Md. Hafizur Rahman
...... Petitioner
-Versus-
Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others.
…. Respondents
Mr. Md. Nurul Islam Sujan with
Ms. Bulbul Rabeya Banu, Advocates
. . . For the petitioner.
Md. Delwar Hossain with
Mr. M. A. Awal, Advocates
.. . For the respondent No. 6.
Present:
Mr. Justice J. B. M. Hassan and
Mr. Justice Razik Al Jalil
Heard on 21.04.2024 and Judgment on 22.04.2024.
J. B. M. Hassan, J.
The petitioner obtained the Rule Nisi in the following terms:
“Let a Rule Nisi be issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned appointment circular dated 12.10.2020 issued by the respondent No. 5 vide memo No. 341(6) inviting application(s) for the post of Nikah Registrar of 11 No. Ullahpara Sador Union, Ullapara, Sirajganj (Annexure-B to the writ petition) and the memo No. 368 dated 25.10.2020 issued by the respondent No. 5 sending the list of candidates for the post of
1
Nikah Registrar of 11 No. Ullapara Sador Union, Ullapara, Sirajganj (Annexure-Cl to the writ petition) should not be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.”
Relevant facts leading to issuance of the Rule Nisi are that due to occurring vacancy in the post of Nikah Registrar under 11 No. Ullapara Sador Union, Ullapara, Sirajganj, the respondents published an appointment circular on 12.10.2020 for appointment of Nikah Registrar in the said area. Thereafter, on receipt of certain applications, the respondents prepared the Panel selecting three candidates for appointment. In this context, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the said appointment circular and obtained the present Rule Nisi.
Mr. Md. Nurul Islam Sujan, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the appointment circular as well as the Rule 6 of the j¤p¢mj ¢hh¡q J a¡m¡L (¢ehåe) ¢h¢dj¡m¡, 2009 (the Rules, 2009). He submits that the circular was published giving only 07(seven) days time instead of 15 days as required by the rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2009 and thereby the petitioner could not apply for the said post. He further submits that the process of preparing the Panel was malafide with ulterior motive made hurriedly in violation of entire rule 6 of the Rules, 2009 and thereby the said process has to be declared null and void.
On the other hand, Md. Delwar Hossain, learned Senior Advocate with
Mr. M. A. Awal, learned Advocate for the respondent No.6 contends that rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2009 is not mandatory. It is mere a directory provision and as such, the Panel which has been prepared on observance of the Rules, 2009, should not be interfered. He further contends that rules 6(3) and 6(5) of the Rules, 2009 were complied with and in the Panel this respondent was placed at the top.
We have gone through the writ petition and other materials on record.
To appreciate the submissions of the contending parties, let us first read the rule 6 of the Rules, 2009 which runs as follows:
""৬। , । (১) ,
, ,
, ,
, - ।
(2) Ef-¢h¢d (1) Hl Ad£e ®L¡e ¢eL¡q ®l¢Sø¡ÊÊÊÊ ll m¡C p ¾pl L¡kÑLla¡l Ahp¡e h¡ ¢eL¡q ®l¢SøÊÊÊ¡ ll a¡¢lM qC a flha£Ñ c¤C pç¡ ql
j dÉ pw¢nÔø ®Sm¡ ®l¢SøÊÊÊÊÊ¡l h¡ p¡h-l¢SøÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ¡l, ¢eL¡q ®l¢SøÊÊÊ¡ll m¡Cp¾p fËc¡el EŸnÉ, f el ¢c el pju fËc¡e L¢lu¡, BNÊq£ fË¡b£Ñl clM¡Ù¹ Bqh¡e L¢l hez
(৩) - (২) pc pÉl
cç ll ®e¡¢Vn cª¢øNË¡qÉ ¢h‘¢ç py¡¢Vu¡ Eq¡ S¡l£ L¢l a qC h
¢eSü , ¢h‘¢çl HL¢V L¢f fËc¡e L¢l a
qC hz
(৪) - (২) , h¡ p¡h- l¢SøÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ¡l
LaѪL Eš²l¦f
৯ fË¡¢çl flha£Ñ
EŸnÉ, fË¡bÑ£ ।
(৫) m¡C p ¾pl h¡R¡C L¢l h
- - (৪)
।”
(Underlined)
On perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that the appointment notice has to be circulated giving at least 15 days time inviting applications from the prospective candidates. But the appointment notice on the face of it, shows that seven days time were given for submitting applications and we also find that the petitioner could not make application, we are of the view that the circular published violating the rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2009 has affected the petitioner’s right given under the law. Therefore, the process of preparing the Panel was definitely made in violation of law.
In view of above, we find merit in this Rule Nisi.
In the result, the Rule Nisi is made absolute. The impugned appointment circular dated 12.10.2020 issued by the respondent No. 5 vide memo No. 341(6) inviting application(s) for the post of Nikah Registrar of 11 No. Ullahpara Sador Union, Ullapara, Sirajganj (Annexure-B to the writ petition) and the memo No. 368 dated 25.10.2020 issued by the respondent No. 5 sending the list of candidates for the post of Nikah Registrar of 11 No. Ullapara Sador Union, Ullapara, Sirajganj (Annexure-Cl to the writ petition) are hereby declared to have been made without lawful authority and are of no legal effect.
The respondents are directed to circulate a fresh appointment notice within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order and to proceed in accordance with rule 6 of the Rules, 2009.
Communicate a copy of this judgment and order to the respondents at
once.
Razik Al Jalil, J I agree.