IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION NO. 14571 OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

Md. Abu Hanif and others

.....Petitioners

-VERSUS-

Government  of  Bangladesh,  represented  by  the Secretary, Ministry of Education and others

..… Respondents

Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, Advocate

.…. For the Petitioners

Mr. Mohammad Waliul Islam Oli, D.A.G with

Mr. Mohammad Rashadul Hassan, D.A.G,

Ms. Nilufar Yesmin, A.A.G,

Mr. Md. Moshiur Rahman (Rahat), A.A.G,

Mr. Md. MotasinBillah Parvez, A.A.G and

Mr. Bishwanath Karmaker, A.A.G

       ......For the Respondents

Present:

Mr. Justice Sashanka Shekhar Sarkar

       And

Justice Urmee Rahman

Heard on 21.06.2026 and 24.06.2026  Judgment on 30.06.2026

Urmee Rahman, J:

In the instant matter a Rule Nisi was issued on an application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh in the following terms:

“Let  a  Rule  Nisi  be  issued  calling  upon  the respondents to show cause as to why non inclusion of the petitioners’  name  in  monthly  pay  order  (MPO)  list  upon rejection of the petitioners’ applications dated 24.09.2024 (Annexure-F to F-3) being Docket No.20241095857 dated 09.10.2024,  Docket  No.  20241011171  dated  11.10.2024, Docket No. 20241011222 dated 11.10.2024 and Docket No. 20241011182 dated 11.10.2024 respectively, even filed for including their names in the Roll of the Monthly Pay Order (MPO)  (Annexure-G)  shall  not  be  declared  to  have  been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and why  the  respondents  shall  not  be  directed  to  include  the petitioners’ names  in the  Roll  of the  Monthly  Pay  Order (MPO) with effect from October, 2024 and onwards and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.”

Relevant facts necessary for disposal of the instant Rule, in short, are that, after participating in a competitive examination the petitioners were appointed on 29.12.2015 in Rosey Mozammel Women’s College, Gurudaspur,  Natore  as  Lecturers  in  the  Departments  of  Economics, Psychology, English and Social Welfare respectively and they joined in the  respective  posts  on  30.12.2015.  They  were  given  appointment following the provisions of S¡a£u ¢hnÄ¢hcÉ¡m­ul A¢di¥š² ®hplL¡l£ L­mS ¢nrL­cl Q¡L¥l£l  naÑ¡hm£  ®l…­mne  (pw­n¡¢da)  2015  since  the  College  is  a  Non- government  Degree College affiliated with the National University of Bangladesh.

At  the  time  of  appointment,  the  college  was  not  under  the government  MPO  scheme.  On  19.04.2020  petitioners’  college  was

enlisted in the MPO. On 29.08.2024 the government decided to include the  names  of  the  3rd  teachers,  who  were  appointed  on  or  before 31.12.2016, in the roll of MPO. Accordingly, the Principal of the College, on behalf of the petitioners, forwarded the applications dated 09.10.2024 and 11.10.2024 providing information of the petitioners for the purpose of including their names in the Monthly Pay Order. The applications were forwarded through the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Director, Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education, Rajshahi Region, Rajshahi.

Petitioners’ applications for enlistment in the MPO were rejected by the respondents via online. MPO for the month of November, 2024 was issued without including the names of the petitioners on the ground that,  they  did  not  have  NTRCA  certificates.  After  rejection  of  the applications, petitioners made representations on 12.01.2025 before the respondent No. 1 praying for inclusion of their names in the MPO, which was received on 13.01.2025 but no response was made. On 26.08.2025 the petitioners through their lawyer sent a Demand Justice Notice upon the respondents but without any result till date.

Finding  no  other  alternative  and  equally  efficacious  remedy available, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition and obtained the Rule.

Learned Advocate Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Rahman submitted that, the petitioners were duly appointed on 29.12.2015 as 3rd teachers in the Degree (Pass) level of the College following the provisions of S¡a£u ¢hnÄ¢hcÉ¡m ul A¢di¥š² ®hplL¡l£ L­mS

¢nrL cl Q¡L¥l£l naÑ¡hm£ ®l…­mne (pw­n¡¢da) 2015. In this Regulation there is no condition for obtaining NTRCA certificate in order to be appointed in the non-government colleges. In the memo dated 29.08.2024 issued by the Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education there was no precondition to obtain NTRCA certificates for including the names of 3rd teachers in the roll of MPO, who were appointed on or before 31.12.2016. Thus, the impugned order of rejection of petitioners' applications on the ground of lack of NTRCA certificate is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and as such the  same  is  liable  to  be  declared  to  have  been  done  without  lawful authority.

Learned Advocate next submitted that, the requirement of NTRCA certificates has been incorporated in  2019 by  the National University Affiliated  Non-Government  College  Teachers'  Service  Condition Regulation, 2019, which came into effect subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners, and the examination for NTRCA certificate for Degree (Pass) teachers was taken for the first time in the year, 2018. It is settled principle of law that the appointing authority has right to amend/alter the service rules to suit the need of time but not to the detriment of the rights or privileges that existed at the relevant time when an employee of such appointing  authority  entered  into  the  service.  The  impugned  order  of rejection of petitioners’ application for enlistment in the MPO on the ground of lack of NTRCA certificate is therefore liable to be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

He  finally  submitted  that,  the  respondents  have  exercised  their power arbitrarily and capriciously and ignoring to do what they are legally bound to do and as such the respondents may kindly be directed to include the petitioners' names in the roll of Monthly Pay Order (MPO) with all arrears from October, 2024 and onwards upon making the Rule absolute.

Conversely Mr. Mohammad Rashadul Hassan, the learned Deputy Attorney  General  contested  the  Rule  on  behalf  of  the  respondents, however, without filing an affidavit in opposition.

Learned Deputy Attorney General submitted that, granting MPO to any institution or any teachers of the institution is a matter of government policy decision and by this time it has been settled by the Apex Court that the Court should not interfere with the decision of the executive regarding policy matters and therefore, the instant Rule having no merit is liable to be discharged.

Learned Deputy Attorney General  further submitted that, in the staff pattern there is no provision for the post of the 3rd teachers. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to be included in the MPO and as such the authority  rightly  rejected  their  applications  and  therefore  no  illegality having been committed by the authority, the instant Rule is liable to be discharged.

We have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioners as well as for the respondents and perused the writ petition and all the documents annexed as Annexures therewith.

It appears from (Annexure-E-3) to the writ petition that pursuant to an appointment circular published in the newspaper on 15.09.2015 the petitioners, having the required qualification, applied for the post of 3rd teachers (extra teachers) in the relevant subjects. According to the S¡a£u ¢hnÄ¢hcÉ¡m­ul A¢di¥š² ®hplL¡l£ L­mS ¢nrL­cl Q¡L¥l£l naÑ¡hm£ ®l…­mne (pw­n¡¢da) 2015 Rule 4(P) the required qualification to be appointed in that post is:

“4z ¢nrL f­c ¢e­u¡­Nl ®k¡NÉa¡ J A¢i‘a¡:

(P)(1) ¢àa£u  শ্রেণীর (স্নাতক  f¡p/স্নাতক ঴ম্মান) ডিগ্রী঴঵ ডিতীয় শ্রেণীর স্নাতককাত্তর ডিগ্রী। স্নাতক ঴ম্মান  ¢XNË£pq  স্নাতককাত্তর ডিডগ্রপ্রাপ্তকদর জন্য  ANË¡ডধকার থাডককে। ¢nr¡ S£h el ®L¡e fkÑ¡ uC a«a£u ®nÐZ£/¢hi¡N NËqZ k¡NÉ qC he¡z”

On perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition we find that, all the petitioners had the required qualifications at the time when they applied to be appointed for the respective posts as lecturer of the College. Accordingly, they took part in the competitive examination and finally they were given appointment by the College Governing Body on 29.12.2015.

It  is  to  be  noted  that,  at  the  time,  when  the  petitioners  were appointed,  their  College  was  not  under  the  MPO  scheme  of  the government. Subsequently, on 19.04.2020 the College was brought under the MPO scheme along with 51(fifty-one) other non-government Colleges around the country.

On 12.06.2022 (Annexuere-F-5) the Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education of Ministry of Education issued a memo from which it transpires that, government had taken the decision to grant MPO to the 3rd teachers (excess teachers) of the 52 (fifty two) Colleges, which were brought  under  the  MPO  scheme  on  19.04.2020  and  who  have  been appointed in those Colleges before 31.12.2016. Accordingly, the Ministry decided that the teachers who have been given appointment as 3rd teachers (excess teachers) on the basis of the circulars issued before 30.12.2015 i.e. prior to the circular of the NTRCA dated 30.12.2015 came into effect and were given appointment before 30.12.2016, will be brought under the government  MPO  scheme.  By  the  circular  dated  30.12.2015  the appointment  of  the  teachers  was  stopped  without  obtaining recommendation from the NTRCA. With this end in view the Ministry of Education asked for necessary information of those 3rd teachers from the concerned  institutions.  The  relevant  portion  of  the  memo  dated 12.06.2022  (Annexuere-F-5)  is  reproduced  below  for  the  purpose  of clarity:

“…….¢nr¡  মন্ত্রণা঱কয়র সূত্রস্থ ঩ত্র শ্রমাতাকেক শ্রপ্রডরত ঩কত্র ৩০.১২.২০১5  তাডরকে জারীকৃত  f­œ  এনটিআরড঴এ-র  p¤f¡¢ln hÉ¢aa ®L¡e ¢nrL ¢e u¡N fÐc¡e hå q u k¡Ju¡l f§ hÑ S¡l£L«a ¢h‘¢çl j¡dÉ j মন্ত্রণা঱কয়র লত তশ্রমাতাকেক ২০১৬ ঴া঱ ঩যন্তত ডনকয়াগকৃত তৃতীয় ডলক্ষককদর এমড঩ও ভূডির আকেদন ঴ম্পকক তabÉ¡¢c শ্রপ্ররণ করার জন্য ডলক্ষা মন্ত্রণা঱য় ঵কত অনুকরাধ Ll¡ q u Rz........”

Following that memo, the Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education issued another memo (Annexure-F-4) on 29.08.2024, enclosing a list of as many as 726 teachers, who were appointment as 3rd teachers before 30.12.2016 and this list was sent to the respective institutions for submitting the required documents for the purpose of granting MPO to them and the present petitioners before us were in serial No. 33, 34, 35 and 36 of that list. On receiving those directions from the Directorate, the Principal  of  the  present  petitioners’  College  by  applications  dated 24.09.2024 sent the relevant information to the authority with supporting documents  in  compliance  with  the  memo  dated  29.08.2024  for  the purpose of granting MPO in favour of the petitioners as evidenced from Annexure-F-2  to  F-3.  Thereafter,  by  the  impugned  online  result,  the petitioners’ applications were rejected stating that; ‘NTRCA Hl pec eC’.

We have already seen from the Regulation of 2015 that there was no requirement  of submitting or obtaining NTRCA certificate  for the teachers, who were given appointment at that time. The requirement for submitting NTRCA certificate for the first time came into effect in the year 2019, which is evident from the Regulation of 2019 (Annexure-H). The relevant provisions of this regulation provides that:

“4 (R)) fÐi¡oLx

1.  ডিতীয় শ্রেডণর স্নাতক ডিগ্রী঴঵ ডিতীয় ডেভাগ/শ্রেডণর pÀ¡a­L¡šl ¢XNË£zডলক্ষা

জীেকনর শ্রকান ঩যাতকয়ই তৃতীয় ডেভাগ/শ্রেণী গ্র঵ণকযাগ্য ঵ইকেনা। চাকুরীকত fÐbj  প্রকেকলর ঴ময়঴ীমা ৩৫ (পঁয়ডত্রল) েৎ঴র (ডনকয়াগ ডেজ্ঞডপ্ত প্রকাকলর তাডরকে)। ঴ংডিষ্ট ডে঳কয় এনটিআরড঴এ-র ঴নদপ্রাপ্তগণ সৃষ্ট ঩কদ ডনকয়াগ ঩রীক্ষায় অংলগ্র঵ণ কডরকত ঩াডরকেz”

Upon meticulous perusal of all other relevant documents annexed to the writ petition we have found that the appointment of the 3rd teachers (excess  teachers)  in  the  Degree  College  were  made  pursuant  to  the government decision that, in order to be affiliated under the Government, the Degree Colleges must have as many as three teachers per subject. Accordingly,  the  appointment  circulars  were  issued  in  2015  for

appointment of the 3rd teachers in the respective subjects and government also subsequently took the decision to grant MPO to these 3rd teachers. Therefore, the submission made by the learned Deputy Attorney General that,  the  posts  of  3rd  teachers  were  not  available  in  the  staff  pattern (RbejKvVv‡gv) is  devoid  of  any  substance  inasmuch  as  the  post  of  3rd teachers i.e. excess teachers are recognized by the government. Therefore, there is no confusion or doubt regarding the entitlement of MPO of the 3rd teachers in the Non-government Degree Colleges.

Now the only question to be determined is whether the rejection by the authority was done in accordance with law or not.

We have already observed from the relevant provisions that at the time when the petitioners were appointed there was no requirement for obtaining NTRCA certificate because the requirement came into force for the  first  time  in  the  year  2019.  Therefore,  no  question  for  obtaining NTRCA certificate arises so far as the petitioners are concerned.

It is by now has been well settled by the Apex Court that granting MPO is the matter of policy decision and the judiciary is not accepted to make any direction upon the executive for inclusion of their names in the MPO. However, this policy decision of the government is not immune from judicial scrutiny if it is found to have been done without any lawful basis and in an arbitrary or whimsical manner. In those circumstances it requires interference by this Court.

Since we have found that the petitioner’s applications were rejected showing the grounds which are not applicable to them, we therefore find that the impugned rejection has been done without any lawful basis and the petitioners are very much lawfully entitled to get the MPO considering that they have fulfilled all the requirements and conditions that has been set forth by the government in the memo as mentioned above.

In view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, we find merit in the Rule.

Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute.

The respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to include the names of the petitioners in the Roll of Monthly Pay Order (MPO) with effect from November, 2024 and pay all the arrear financial entitlements to them, which they are  lawfully entitled to since November, 2024, within 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.

However, there is no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this judgment and order be communicated to the concerned authorities at once.

Justice Sashanka Shekhar Sarkar, J:

I agree.

Helal/ABO