IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

APPELLATE DIVISION

     PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain, Chief Justice

Mr. Justice Hasan Foez Siddique              Mr. Justice Obaidul Hassan

CIVIL APPEAL NO.234 OF 2007.

(From the judgment and order dated 09.03.2006 passed by the High Court Division in Writ

Petition No.4714 of 2001.)

Maves Jasmin and others Appellants.

=Versus=

Md. Ruhul Amin-3 and others         Respondents. For the Appellants : Mr. Qamrul Haque Siddique,

Advocate, instructed by Mr. Md. Taufique Hossain, Advocate-on-Record.

For the Respondent : Nos.1-2

For the Respondent : No.3

For the Respondent : Nos.11-13

For the Respondent : Nos.14 & 16

Mr. Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan Senior Advocate, instructed by Mrs. Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record.

Mr. A.M. Aminuddin, Attorney General (with Mr. Md. Ibrahim Khalil, Advocate) instructed by Mr. Md. Zahirul Islam, Advocate-on-Record.

Mr. Biswajit Debnath, Deputy Attorney General & Mr. Samarandra Nath Biswas, Deputy Attorney General instructed by Mr. Haridas Paul, Advocate-on-Record.

Mr. Probir Neogi, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Syed Mahbubar Rahman, Advocate-on-Record.

For the Respondent : Mr. Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan, as added respondent Senior Advocate instructed by Nos.19-26 Mrs. Sufia Khatun, Advocate-

on-Record.

[[[

Respondent     :    Not represented. Nos. 4-10, 15 & 17-

18

Date of hearing          : 18.11.2020 & 25.11.2020.

Date of judgment         : 08.12.2020

JUDGMENT

Hasan Foez Siddique, J: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.03.2006 passed by the High Court Division

in Writ Petition No.4717 of 2001 making the

Rule absolute.

The relevant facts, for disposal of this

appeal, are that the writ petitioners were

the representatives of the registered association of the officers and employees of Bangladesh Parliament, namely, ‘Bangladesh

Jatiya Sangshad Sachibalaya Karmakarta-o- Karmachari Kalyan Samity’ (hereinafter refer

to as “Samity”). They challenged the amended

Rule 7 of  pwpc p¢Qh¡mu LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjÑQ¡l£ ¢e u¡N ¢h¢dj¡m¡, 1994 (hereinafter refer to Service Rules, 1994)

pursuant to which appointment by way of absorption was provided which adversely affected the seniority of the existing officers and employees of the Parliament

Secretariat. The writ petitioners were appointed in the Bangladesh Parliament Secretariat in accordance with Parliament Secretariat Officer and Employees Recruitment Rules, 1982 (the service Rules, 1982). The Parliament, exercising the power conferred under Article 79 of the Constitution, enacted Parliamentary Secretariat Act, 1994 (hereinafter refer to as Act, 1994). As per provision of Section 10 of the said Act, 1994, the officers and employees of the Parliamentary Secretariat will be recruited in accordance with the service Rules, to be framed with a condition that till framing Rules, the Service Rules, 1982 should be followed. They stated that in Section 11 of the said Act it has been stipulated that the service conditions of the officers and employees of Parliament Secretariat should be governed by the Rules applicable for the officers and employees of the Republic. The writ respondents No.2, exercising power conferred under Section 21 of the Act, 1994, framed Service Rules, 1994 and in the Service Rules, 1994 the appointment procedures including appointment by way of absorption

has been provided. In Rule 7 of the Service Rules, it has been stipulated that on the day of enactment of the Act, 1994 the persons who were on deputation in the said Secretariat could be absorbed in the Parliament Secretariat. On 29.05.2000, writ respondent No.2 amended the Rule 7 to the effect that the officers and employees working in the Parliament in any manner till 31.12.2000 may be absorbed if their service is deemed essential. The writ Respondent No.2, by notification dated 3rd July, 2001 framed a “Nitimala” namely “Parliamentary Secretariat Absorbed Employees Seniority Nitimala, 2001” (Nitimala, 2001). Pursuant to the amendment dated 29.05.2000, the writ respondent Nos. 12-32 were absorbed in the service of the Parliament Secretariat. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid amended Rule No.7 of the Service Rules 1994, the seniority “Nitimala”, 2001 as well as the absorption of the writ- respondents No.12-32, the writ-petitioners filed instant writ petition and obtained the Rule.

The High Court Division, by its judgment and order dated 09.03.2006, made the Rule absolute declaring the amended Rule No.7 of the Service Rules, 1994, ‘Nitimala’ 2001, and absorption of the writ Respondent Nos. 12-32 have been done without lawful authority and were of no legal effect. Against the said judgment, the writ Respondent Nos. 12-25 preferred Civil Appeal No.234 of 2007 upon getting leave.

Mr. Qamrul Haque Siddique, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submits that Section 10(1) of the Act, 1994 provides that officers and employees of the Parliament Secretariat shall be appointed in accordance with procedure provided by the Service Rules and Section 10(2) of the said Act, 1994 provides that the officers and employees working in the Parliament Secretariat before enactment of Act, 1994 shall be ‘deemed’ to be officers and employees to the Parliament Secretariat from the date of enforcement of the Act, 1994 but officers and employees working on deputation are excluded from the deeming clause. He submits that in Section

10(1) of the Act, 1994 contemplates the provision of framing of Rules for purpose of recruitment of the officers and employees in the Secretariat. Section 21 of the Act empowers the Speaker to frame Rules, by Gazette Notification, in consultation with Parliament Secretariat Commission. He further submits that the officers and employees working on deputation will be deemed to be officers and employees of the Parliament Secretariat. Service Rules, 1994 provided provisions for the recruitment in the Parliament Secretariat in five ways including “absorption” which is the 5th one. He, lastly, submits that by the amended Rule 7 the dateline of absorption was extended from 18.05.1994 to 31.12.2000 and the said dateline was fixed by the Rules framed by the Speaker, the High Court Division erred in law in declaring the amended Rule 7 ultra-vires the Act, 1994 and the Constitution and also declaring the aforesaid ‘Nitimala’ void.

Mr. A.M. Aminuddin, learned Attorney General appearing for the Respondent No.3, supported the appeal and submits that along

with other methods of appointment/recruitment, Rule 7 of the Service Rules, 1994 provided an option for absorption for the persons who had been working in the Parliament on deputation on the day of promulgation of Act, 1994 with effect from 18.05.1994 and subsequently by amending Rule 7 of the Service Rules, 1994 the cutoff date was shifted from 18.05.1994 to 31.12.2000. Such amended Rule 7 has not in any manner affected the service conditions of officers and employees who have been serving before promulgation of Service Rules, 1994 in the Parliament Secretariat. There was no reason for anyone to be aggrieved by this amendment. He further submits that with a view to achieve in the object of Article 79 of the Constitution and in exercise of the power conferred article 79(2) of the Constitution, the Parliament enacted the Parliament Secretariat Act, 1994. Under Section 21 of the said Act power was delegated with the Speaker to frame Service Rules. Rule 7 was amended exercising such power, the High Court Division erred in law in declaring the impugned amendment void.

Mr. Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan, Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.19-26 submits that Rule 7 of the Rules, 1994 as amended on 29.05.2000 is in excess of the power of the Speaker under the Act and adversely affected the service conditions of the existing employees of the Parliament Secretariat, the High Court Division rightly declared the Rule 7 ultra-vires the Act. He submits that Rule 7 of the Service Rules, 1994 as framed on 6th November, 1994 provides the provision of absorption of only those officers and employees who were directly appointed by the Government or employed on deputation on the date of the coming into force Parliament Secretariat Act, 1994, if their service is considered indispensable. But Section 11 of the Act, 1994 provides that the subject to the provisions of the Act, the conditions of the service applicable to the persons appointed in civil posts of the Republic will be applicable to the officers and employees of the Parliament Secretariat. Service Rules, 1994 provides that no direct appointment can be made to any post accept class III & IV employees without recommendation of the commission which means Bangladesh Public Service Commission. He submits that the High Court Division upon proper appreciation of the materials on record rightly made the Rule absolute.  

The moot question for determination in this appeal is as to whether the amended Rule 7 of the Service Rules, 1994; the ‘c‡`vbœwZ ˆRô¨Zv bxwZgvjv, 2001’ and absorption writ Respondent appellants were rightly declared void by the High Court Division or not.

The Parliament Secretariat is an independent constitutional and statutory body which functions under the guidance and control of the Speaker. The Parliament Secretariat is part of the second organ of the State. The Speaker is the executive head of the Parliament Secretariat. In the discharge of the constitutional and statutory responsibility, the Speaker of the Parliament is assisted by the officers and staffs of Parliament Secretariat. The main activity of the Secretariat is to provide secretarial assistance and support to the functions of the Speaker and Parliament. Article 79(1) of the Constitution provides the provision that the Parliament shall have its own Secretariat. Clause 2 of Article 79 provides that Parliament may, by law, regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Secretariat of Parliament. Exercising the power conferred under Article 79 of Constitution, the Parliament enacted RvZxq msm  mwPevjq AvBb, 1994 (the Act, 1994). The preamble of the said Act is relevant here to reproduce for perusal of the object of the said Act which runs as follows:

“MYcÖRvZš¿x evsjv‡`‡ki msweav‡bi 79 Aby‡”Q‡`i D‡Ïk¨ c~iYK‡í RvZxq msm mwPevjq MVb Ges Dnvi Kg©KZ©v I Kg©PvixM‡Yi wb‡qvM I K‡g©i kZ© mg~n weavb cÖYq‡bi Rb¨ D‡jøwLZ AvBb|

†h‡nZz MYcÖRvZš¿x evsjv‡`‡ki msweav‡bi 79 Aby‡”Q‡`i D‡Ïk¨ c~iYK‡í

RvZxq msm` mwPevj‡qi MVb Ges Dnvi Kg©KZv© I Kg©PvixM‡Yi wb‡qvM I K‡g©i kZ©mg~n m¤ú‡K© weavb cÖYqb mgxPxb I cÖ‡qvRbxq; †m‡nZz GZØviv wb¤œiƒc AvBb cÖYqb Kiv n‡jv|” 

Section 3 (3) of Act 8 of 1994 provides,

“Section 3 (3) “pwpc p¢Qh¡mu ¢h¢d d¡l¡ ¢edÑ¡¢la fÜ¢a a ¢ek¤š² LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjÑQ¡l£M‡Yi pjeÄ u N¢Va qC hz”

Section 5 of the said Act provides the power of the Speaker of the Parliament which runs as follows:

Section 5| “pwpc p¢Qh¡m ul LaѪaÅ| - (1) pwpc p¢Qh¡m ul fÐn¡p¢eL c¡¢uaÅ Øf£L¡ ll Efl eÉÙ¹ b¡¢L hz

(2) Øf£L¡l t- au¡q¡l HC c¡¢uaÅ üuw f¡me L¢l he Abh¡ ¢h¢d à¡l¡ ¢edÑ¡¢la

®L¡e LjÑLaÑ¡l Efl AfÑe L¢l hez”

Section 7 of the said Act provides:

Section 7z “pwpc p¢Qh¡mu L¢jnez-(1) ¢ejÀh¢ZÑa pcpÉN Zl pjeÄ u N¢Wa HL¢V pwpc p¢Qh¡mu L¢jne b¡¢L h, kb¡x-

(L) Øf£L¡l, ¢k¢e Eq¡l ‡Pqvig¨vb J qC he;

(M)      cÖavbgš¿x h¡ ZrKZ©„K GZ`y‡Ï‡k¨ j e¡¢ea ®L¡e pwpc pcpÉ;

(N) pwp cl ¢h l¡d£cjxq ®ea¡ h¡ ZrKZ©„K GZ`y‡Ï‡k¨ j e¡¢ea ®L¡e pwpc

pcpÉ;

(O)   pwpc ¢houL gš¿Yvjq h¡ ¢hi¡ Nl `vwq‡Z¡ ¢e u¡¢Sa j¿»£ h¡ ZrKZ©„K

GZ`y‡Ï‡k¨ j e¡¢ea pwpc pcpÉ;

(P) A_© gš¿x ev ZrKZ©„K GZ`y‡Ï‡k¨ j e¡¢ea †Kvb msm` m`m¨|

(2) pwpc p¢Qh¡mu L¢jne pwpc p¢Qh¡m ul LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjÑQ¡l£M‡Yi pwMÉ¡ ¢edÑ¡lY, a¡q¡ cl pwMÉ¡i qÊ¡p/hª¢Ü Hhw Eš² p¢Qh¡m­u h¡¢oÑL h¡­SV cÖYqb J h¡ S V hl¡ŸL«a AbÑ e¨v‡qi fl¡jnÑ cÖ vb L¢l hzÓ

Section 10 of the said Act provides the provision of appointment of the Officers and Staffs of the Parliament Secretariat which

runs as follows:

Section 10z “pwpc p¢Qh¡j‡qi LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjÑQ¡l£ ¢e u¡Nz-(1)          pwpc p¢Qh¡m ul LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjÑQ¡l£NZ ¢h¢d à¡l¡ ¢edÑ¡¢la fÜ¢a­a ¢ek¤š² qC­hex

a­h naÑ b¡­L ®k, Eš² ¢h¢d cÖYxZ e¡ qJu¡ fkÑ¿¹ The Parliament

Secretariat Officers and Employees

Recruitment Rules, 1982 Ae¤p¡ l Eš² LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjÑQ¡l£NZ wbhy³

qC hez

(2) HC A¡Ce fÐhaÑ el Ae¨ewnZ f§ hÑ pwpc p¢Qh¡mu L¡kÑla LjÑLaÑ¡ J

LjÑQ¡l£NZ Eš² p¢Qh¡m­u ®fÐo­Z L¡kÑla LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjÑQ¡l£NZ hÉa£a HC A¡Ce

fÐhaÑ el ms‡M ms‡M Eš² p¢Qh¡m­ul LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjÑQ¡l£ h¢mu¡ NZÉ qC­hezÓ

Section 11 provides the provisions of the

terms and conditions of the service of the

officers and employees of Parliament Secretariat which runs as follows:

11z “Q¡L¥l£l mvaviY naÑ¡hm£z- HC A¡C el ¢hd¡ehmx p¡ f r fÐS¡a ¿»l

Ap¡j¢lL f­c ¢ek¤š² plL¡l£ LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjÑQ¡l£N­Zl ®r­œ fÊ­k¡SÉ Q¡L¥l£l naÑ¡hm£ pwpc p¢Qh¡m­u ¢ek¤š² pLm LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjÑQ¡l£l ®r­œ fЭk¡SÉ qC­hz”

Section 21 of the said Act empowers the

Speaker to frame service Rules which runs as

follows:

Section 21 | “wewa cÖYqb t- (1) ¯úxKvi GB AvB‡bi D‡Ïk¨

c~iYK‡í msm` mwPevjq Kwgk‡bi mwnZ civgk©µ‡g miKvix ‡M‡RU cÖÁvcY à¡l¡

wewa cÖYqb Kwi‡Z cvwi‡eb|

(2) we‡kl Kwiqv Ges Dc‡iv³ ÿgZvi mvgwMÖKZv ÿzbœ bv Kwiqv wb¤œwjwLZ

mKj ev †h †Kvb wel‡q D³iƒc wewa cÖYqb Kiv hvB‡e|

(K) 

(L)  

(M)      Kg©KZ©v I Kg©PvixM‡Yi wbqš¿Y| ”

Exercising power conferred under Section

21 of the Act, 1994, the Speaker in the consultation with Parliament Secretariat Commission framed services Rules in the name

of, “(msm` mwPevj‡qi Kg©KZ©v I Kg©Pvix wb‡qvM wewagvjv, 1994)” (service Rules, 1994) on 6th November, 1994.

Rule 3 of the said service Rules provides

the procedure to be followed for appointment

which runs as follows:

3| “wb‡qvM c×wZt- (1) Zdwm‡j ewY©Z weavb mv‡c‡ÿ wba©vwiZ †Kvb c‡` wb¤œwjwLZ c×wZ‡Z wb‡qvM Kiv nB‡e, h_vt-

(K) mivmwi wb‡qv‡Mi gva¨‡g; A_ev

(L)   c‡`vbœwZi gva¨‡g; A_ev

(M) ‡cÖl‡Y e`wji gva¨‡g; A_ev

(N) Pzw³wfw³K wb‡qv‡Mi gva¨‡g; A_ev

(N) AvZ¥xKi‡Yi gva¨‡g|”

That is, the Rule 3 (1) (Uma) provides

the provision for appointment by way of

absorption.

Rule 7 of the service Rules specifically provides the provision by way of absorption which runs as follows:

Rule 7z “AvZ¥xKi‡Yi j¡dÉ j wb‡qvM| - msm` mwPevj‡qi Kvh©vw` myôzfv‡e m¤úv`‡bi Rb¨ RvZxq msm` AvBb, 1994 Kvh©Ki£ qJu¡l Zvwi‡L msm` mwPevj‡q miKvi KZ©„K mivmwi A_ev †cÖl‡Y wb‡qvwRZ †Kvb Kg©KZ©vi PvKzix Acwinvh© j e L¢l m Hhw pw¢nÔø LjÑLaÑ¡ J Zvunvi ¢e u¡NL¡l£ LaѪf rl mwnZ pÇj¢a

p¡­f­r Øf£L¡l Eš² LjÑLaÑ¡­L ü£u f­c AvZ¥xKiY L¢l a f¡¢l hez”  

The writ petitioners in their writ petition did not challenge the original provision of Rule 7 of Service Rules 1994. On 29th May, 2000 Rule 7 was amended. The amended provision of Rule 7 runs as follows:

Amended Rule  7|  “AvZ¥xKi‡Yi gva¨‡g wb‡qvMt- msm

mwPevj‡qi Kvh©vw` myôzfv‡e m¤úv`‡bi j‡ÿ¨ †Kvb miKvix Kg©KZ©v ev msm‡` Kg©iZ †Kvb Kg©KZ©vi PvKzix Acwinvh© g‡b Kwi‡j, ¯úxKvi, mswkøó Kg©KZ©v I Zvunvi

wb‡qvMKvix KZ…©c‡ÿi m¤§wZ mv‡c‡ÿ Zvunv‡K mg ` ev †ÿÎgZ ¯^xq c‡` 2000

mv‡ji 31‡k wW‡m¤^‡ii g‡a¨ AvZ¥xKi‡Yi gva¨‡g wb‡qvM Kwi‡Z cvwi‡eb|”

On 3rd July, 2001 Parliament Secretariat,

by a gazette notification issued a circular

in the name of, “msm` mwPevj‡q AvZ¥xK…Z Kg©KZ©v‡`i ‰Rô¨Zv

bxwZgvjv, 2001 (Nitimala, 2001). Clause 3 of the

said “Nitimala” provides: 3| AvZ¥xK…Z Kg©KZ©vi ˆRô¨Zv|-

(1)  AvZ¥xK…Z c‡`i mggh©`v m¤úbœ †h g~j c` nB‡Z AvZ¥xKiY Kiv nBqv‡Q,

D³ g~j c‡` †hvM`v‡bi ZvwiL nB‡Z mswkøó Kg©KZ©vi AvZ¥xK…Z c‡` ˆRô¨Zv wba©vwiZ

nB‡e| 

(2)    g~j c‡` AvZ¥xK…Z c‡`i mggh©v`v m¤úbœ bv nB‡j AvZ¥xK…Z c‡`

†hvM`v‡bi ZvwiL nB‡Z AvZ¥xK…Z ˆRô¨Zv wba©vwiZ nB‡e|”

It is clear from the constitutional provision, the Act of 1994 and Rules framed thereunder that the idea is to crystallise the position regarding supremacy and centre position of the Speaker and his constitutional and statuary authority in the matters of appointment, disciplinary action and issuing of orders affecting matters or conditions of service of the officers and staffs. The Act and the Rules framed in exercise of powers conferred on the Speaker, it appears that the Speaker has been given wide powers with regard to the affairs of the Secretariat, particularly in the matter relating to appointment, recruitment etc.  

The office of the Speaker is held in the highest respect and esteem in parliamentary traditions and the Speaker holds an important and ceremonial office. Such respect is historical and inherent in the concept of Parliamentary democracy. Pandit Jawaharal Nahru had to say about the position of the Speaker, which is reproduced below: “The Speaker represents the House. He represents the dignity of the House, the freedom of the House and because the House represents the nation, in a particular way, the Speaker becomes the symbol of the nation freedom and liberty.”

In the scheme of the Constitution, the Speaker has been given all the powers to appoint official for the internal management

of the Parliament and those appointments can only be challenged in extremely exceptional cases. By operation of Article 79(2) of the Constitution, the Parliament may by law, regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed. Until the provision is made in this behalf by the Parliament, the President may, after consultation with the Speaker of the Parliament, make rules regulating the recruitment and condition of service of persons appointed to the secretariat of Parliament, and rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any law.    

The legislature has power to make laws in respect of any matter and that power to make laws is subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Legislation to be valid, must,

in all cases be in conformity with the constitutional requirements. The presumption is in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a transgression of constitutional principles. There is a strong presumption that a legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs. The Judges are not called upon to play the role of path-finders and architects.   

From the aforementioned proposition of law it appears that in exercise of the power conferred under article 79 of the Constitution Parliament Secretariat Act, 1994 was enacted. Section 3(3) of the Act provides that the Parliament Secretariat will be constituted by the officers and employees appointed under the Rules to be framed. Section 7(2) authorises the Parliament Secretariat Commission will fix, create or reduce the number of posts of the officers and employees of the Parliament Secretariat. Section 10 of the Act mandates that the officers and employees of the Parliament Secretariat shall be appointed following the procedure of the service Rules to be framed. Section 11 of the Act provides that the terms and conditions of the service applicable to the officers and employees of the Government will be applicable to the officers and employees of the Parliament Secretariat subject to the provisions of the Act. Rule 3 of the Service Rules contemplates the method or methods by which a post or class of posts may be filled. Rule (3)(1)(uma) of the service Rules provides the provision of appointment by way of absorption. Rule 7 of the Rules provided that the government officers or any other officers working in the Parliament Secretariat on the date of coming into force of the Act, if considered by the Speaker to be inevitable, may be absorbed in the service of the Parliament Secretariat provided that their appointing authority and the officer concerned give consent. The impugned amended Rule simply replaced the date 18.05.1994, that was date of coming into force of the Rules. Keeping other conditions as it were Rule 7 was amended extending the time upto 31st December, 2000. The power of amendment and modification of the original provision was still available to the Speaker

A statute may be declared unconstitutional by the High Court Division exercising its power under article 102 of the constitution only if the statute is inconsistent of the constitution. Such inconsistency may be of various kinds such as

the contravention of a fundamental right. The validity of the subordinate or delegated legislation can be challenged if the same is found to be ultra-vires the enabling or Parent Law. When the delegated legislation is found to be directly or indirectly in conflict with the provisions of the enabling law or Parent Law, it is held to be ultra- vires which are absent in this case. By the impugned amendment extended period of absorption was mentioned only.  

   The speaker is authorized under Section 5 of the Act to take any step in exercise of his administrative power necessary for ensuring effective administration of the Parliament Secretariat and accordingly ‘Nitimala’, 2001 was issued and adopted by the Speaker. The High Court Division is authorized to declare a provision of law ultra-vires mainly on two grounds, which are No.(i) If subordinate legislation is promulgated in violation of the current law or (ii) same is inconsistent with any Constitution, which are absent in this case.

The High Court Division has observed, “In

Section 11 of the Act of 1994, it has been

stipulated that the service conditions of the

employees are to be determined by the

existing laws for the employees of the

Republic and the seniority is one the service

conditions and as such, the framing of such

Regulations by respondent No.2 exercising the

power conferred under section 21 of the Act

of 1994 is a gross violation of the

provisions of section 11 of the Act”. The

High Court Division has failed to notice that

section 11 of the Act, 1994 has started with

the words,  ÒcªRvZ‡š¿i AmvgwiK c‡` wbhy³ miKvix Kg©KZ©v I Kg©PvixM‡bi †¶‡Î cª‡hvR¨ PvKzixi kZ©vejx msm` mwPevj‡q wbhy³ mKj Kg©KZ©v I Kg©Pvixi †¶‡Î cª‡hvR¨ nB‡e|Ó That is , conditions of

service applicable to the civilian officers

and employees of the Republic would be

applicable for the officers and employees of

the Parliament Secretariat subject to the

provisions of the Act, 1994. Act, 1994 and

Rules framed thereunder provided special

provisions for recruitment of the officers

and employees of Parliament Secretariat.

Here, the word “conditions” has been used to

mean the standard terms and conditions of

service. A term given a certain meaning in the Act shall have the same meaning when used in the conditions of service. Otherwise the normal rules of interpretation of the law will apply. The ordinary rule of construction of a statute must be construed in accordance with the language used depending upon the context. The Court should adopt purposive interpretation of the statute to articulate the felt necessities of the time. Article 79 of the constitution has been provided with the object that the Secretariat attached to the parliament should have staff, which should be under the effective control with the head of the parliament. The idea is to crystallise the position regarding supremacy of the Speaker and to give constitutional authority .  The Speaker is the framer, operator and interpreter of the Rules and consequently he can amend the Rules from time to time following the related laws.

We have seen that Section 21 of the Act allowed the Speaker to promulgate Rules and exercising that power the instant amendment was made and published in the Official Gazette. There is nothing in the amended provision of Rule 7 which is or can be said to be repugnant to any provisions of the Act, of 1994 or of the Constitution.

Accordingly, we find substance in the appeal.

Thus, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division is hereby set aside.

 C.J.   J.   J.

The 18th December,2020. Anwar Hossain, B.R./words-3857/