Appellate Division :
(Civil)
Surendra Kumar
Sinha CJ
Nazmun Ara Sultana J
Syed Mahmud
Hossain J
Rina Rani Sutradhar and others…….
………Petitioners
(In CP No. 249 of 2013)
vs
Government of Bangladesh and others ……..Respondents”
(In all the petitions
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article l02(a)(i) and (ii)
Appointments had been made without following the rules and procedures and that in the inquiry report it had been opined that the petitioners managed to get their appointments by way of irregularities and corrupt practice. The petitioners had not acquired any vested right in the office on the basis of their appointments. .. …. (11)
Sikder Makbul Haque, Advocate, instructed by Md Taufique Hossain, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners. (In both the petitions)
Khurshid Alam Khan, Advocate, instructed by Md Zahirul Islam, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondents. (In all petitions)
Judgment
Syed Mahmud Hossain J: All the civil petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment and order dated 28-2-2012 passed by
a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition Nos. 1796, 1798, 1799, 1800 and 6791 of 2011 discharging the Rules.
2. All the civil petitions for leave to appeal involving similar questions of laws and facts having been heard together are now being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The facts leading to the filing of these civil petitions for leave to appeal, in brief, are:
The writ-petitioners of Writ Petition Nos. 1796, 1798, 1799 and 1800 of 2011 filed these writ petitions before the High Court Division challenging the letter dated 3-2-2011 issued under the signature of Civil Surgeon, Sunamganj, cancelling the appointments of the writ-petitioners and obtained Rules Nisi in the above writ-petitions.
4. The writ-petitioners of Writ Petition No. 6791 of 2010 filed the said writ petition before the High Court Division challenging the appointment letters of the writ-petitioners of the aforesaid four writ-petitions issued by different letters from the office of the Civil Surgeon, Sunamganj and obtained Rule Nisi in the said writ petition.
5. The writ-respondents contested the Rules by filing affidavits-in-opposition controverting the material statements made in the writ petitions.
6. The learned Judges of the High Court Division upon hearing both the parties by the judgment and order dated 28-12-2012 discharged the Rules.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division, the writ-petitioners as the leave-petitioners have filed all the civil petitions for leave to appeal before this Division.
8. Mr Sikder Makbul Haque, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the leave- petitioners of all the leave-petitions, submits that it is a decided principle of law that appointment even though made in violation of law cannot be cancelled without opportunity of being heard to the affected person and that the learned Judges of the High Court Division ignored this aspect of this matter and, as such, the impugned judgment should be set aside. He further submits that none was appointed to Class-III posts and, as such, the question of any corruption, illegality or irregularity in the appointment to the said posts does not and cannot arise and the allegations in this regard are unfounded and, as such, the impugned judgment should be set aside.
9. Mr Khurshid Alam Khan, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents of all the petitions, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court Division.
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides, perused the impugned judgment and the materials on record.
11. Considering the report of the inquiry committee, the Government cancelled the order of appointments and that it could not be said that letter impugned before the High Court Division was arbitrary.
The High Court Division further found that the appointments had been made without following the rules and procedures and that in the inquiry report it had been opined that the petitioners managed to get their appointments by way of irregularities and corrupt practice.
The High Court Division also found that the petitioners had not acquired any vested right in the office on the basis of their appointments. Therefore, the High ‘Court Division concluded that there was no illegality or irregularity in the order of cancellation made by the respondents.
The findings of the High Court Division having been based on proper appreciation of law and fact do not call for interference. Accordingly, all the petitions are dismissed.
(Civil)
Surendra Kumar
Sinha CJ
Nazmun Ara Sultana J
Syed Mahmud
Hossain J
Rina Rani Sutradhar and others…….
………Petitioners
(In CP No. 249 of 2013)
vs
Government of Bangladesh and others ……..Respondents”
(In all the petitions
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article l02(a)(i) and (ii)
Appointments had been made without following the rules and procedures and that in the inquiry report it had been opined that the petitioners managed to get their appointments by way of irregularities and corrupt practice. The petitioners had not acquired any vested right in the office on the basis of their appointments. .. …. (11)
Sikder Makbul Haque, Advocate, instructed by Md Taufique Hossain, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners. (In both the petitions)
Khurshid Alam Khan, Advocate, instructed by Md Zahirul Islam, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondents. (In all petitions)
Judgment
Syed Mahmud Hossain J: All the civil petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment and order dated 28-2-2012 passed by
a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition Nos. 1796, 1798, 1799, 1800 and 6791 of 2011 discharging the Rules.
2. All the civil petitions for leave to appeal involving similar questions of laws and facts having been heard together are now being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The facts leading to the filing of these civil petitions for leave to appeal, in brief, are:
The writ-petitioners of Writ Petition Nos. 1796, 1798, 1799 and 1800 of 2011 filed these writ petitions before the High Court Division challenging the letter dated 3-2-2011 issued under the signature of Civil Surgeon, Sunamganj, cancelling the appointments of the writ-petitioners and obtained Rules Nisi in the above writ-petitions.
4. The writ-petitioners of Writ Petition No. 6791 of 2010 filed the said writ petition before the High Court Division challenging the appointment letters of the writ-petitioners of the aforesaid four writ-petitions issued by different letters from the office of the Civil Surgeon, Sunamganj and obtained Rule Nisi in the said writ petition.
5. The writ-respondents contested the Rules by filing affidavits-in-opposition controverting the material statements made in the writ petitions.
6. The learned Judges of the High Court Division upon hearing both the parties by the judgment and order dated 28-12-2012 discharged the Rules.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division, the writ-petitioners as the leave-petitioners have filed all the civil petitions for leave to appeal before this Division.
8. Mr Sikder Makbul Haque, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the leave- petitioners of all the leave-petitions, submits that it is a decided principle of law that appointment even though made in violation of law cannot be cancelled without opportunity of being heard to the affected person and that the learned Judges of the High Court Division ignored this aspect of this matter and, as such, the impugned judgment should be set aside. He further submits that none was appointed to Class-III posts and, as such, the question of any corruption, illegality or irregularity in the appointment to the said posts does not and cannot arise and the allegations in this regard are unfounded and, as such, the impugned judgment should be set aside.
9. Mr Khurshid Alam Khan, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents of all the petitions, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court Division.
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides, perused the impugned judgment and the materials on record.
11. Considering the report of the inquiry committee, the Government cancelled the order of appointments and that it could not be said that letter impugned before the High Court Division was arbitrary.
The High Court Division further found that the appointments had been made without following the rules and procedures and that in the inquiry report it had been opined that the petitioners managed to get their appointments by way of irregularities and corrupt practice.
The High Court Division also found that the petitioners had not acquired any vested right in the office on the basis of their appointments. Therefore, the High ‘Court Division concluded that there was no illegality or irregularity in the order of cancellation made by the respondents.
The findings of the High Court Division having been based on proper appreciation of law and fact do not call for interference. Accordingly, all the petitions are dismissed.
