(From previous issue) :
4. Mr Syed Mamun Mahbub, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner at the outset refutes that the petitioner did not at all possess a master’s degree at the time of joining. In this regard, he submits by reference in particular to the petitioner’s Supplementary Affidavit that although at the time of joining i.e., on 16-10-1995 the petitioner had master’s degree (3rd class) but subsequently he improved that qualification by getting his master’s degree (2nd class) on 10-8-1996. Therefore, the Managing Committee of Mirbagh Mahabiddaloy after complying with the requirements as enunciated in the ‘paripatra’ of the ???????? ?????? ?????????? (???????? ????) Gi ?????? ? ??????????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ????????? ???????? 1995 promoted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor of Department of Mathematics. Next, he submits that in the aforesaid premises the petitioner is legally entitled to salary at the rank of Assistant Professor instead of as Lecturer of Mirbagh Mahabiddaloy. But the respondents did not pay the same and have acted in an arbitrary manner. On closing his submissions Mr Mamun prays to make the Rule absolute.
5. Ms Israt Jahan, the learned Assistant Attorney General appearing for all the respondents submits that at the time of appointment the petitioner had not any master’s degree, therefore his promotion for the post of Assistant Professor was illegal and, accordingly, he has no right to get his salary at the scale of Assistant Professor.
6. We have gone through the writ petition and the petitioner’s Supplementary Affidavit along with all annexures, and also the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the respondent No.2 with annexures therein.
7. The core question before us is whether the petitioner as per provisions of law is entitled to get his salary at the scale of Assistant Professor instead of as Lecturer from May, 2003 onwards.
8. Before entering into the merit of the case, we first take a look into ‘???????? K of the ‘Paripatra’ of the ???????? ?????? ?????????? (???????? ????) ?? ?????? ? ??????????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ????????? ???????? ????????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ???????, ????, ??? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ????:
???????? ?
“???????? ?????? ????? (???????? ????) ?? ?????? ? ??????????? ???? ????? ???????, ???????? ? ???? ?????
?????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ??????? (???????) ???????? ???? ????? ???????
? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ??????/ ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????????? ???????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????/????? ?????? ????? ????????? ?????? ??????????? ??????? ??? ? ?????? ????????? ???????? ???? ????
9. The statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner has been promoted without qualifying as per the mandatory requirement of ???????? ‘?’ of the ‘Paripatra’ of the ???????? ?????? ?????????? (???????? ????) ?? ?????? ? ??????????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ????????? ???????? published by the Ministry of Education on 24th October, 1995 is not correct. In the present case, the petitioner after fulfilling the aforesaid criterion/requirement pertaining to “??????? ???? ???????? ??????? (???????)” applied for the post of Assistant Professor. Then, the governing body of Mirbagh Mahabiddaloy having found the petitioner’s application as per ???????? ‘?’ of the ‘Paripatra’ of the ???????? ?????? ?????????? (???????? ????) ?? ?????? ? ??????????? ???? ??????? ?????? Ask ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ????????? ???????? published by the Ministry of Education on 24th October, 1995 accordingly promoted him to the post of Assistant Professor.
10. On the other hand, it appears from the office memo No. 7wR/09(K-3)/2007/7856/2 31-5-2010 that the respondent No.3 rejected the petitioner’s entitlement of salary at the scale of Assistant Professor on the ground that Òwb‡qvMKv‡j gvóvm© mb` wQj bvÓ| But nowhere in the aforesaid office memo dated 31-5-2010 the respondent No.2 either mentions or specifies any provision of law, which was violated by the governing body of Mirbagh Mahabiddaloy at the time of promoting the present petitioner. It is the duty of every person discharging the functions and duties of public office to pass his/her order/orders in clear language mentioning the specific provisions of law whenever applicable.
11. In light of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the governing body of Mirbagh Mahabiddaloy did not violate any provision of law as laid down in the ‘Paripatra’ by promoting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor. Thereafter, the inaction of the respondents manifested in not giving the petitioner’s government portion of monthly salary or MPO at the salary scale of Assistant Professor is found to be without legal authority. The same also reflects an arbitrary abdication of duty by a public authority and the facts and circumstances also involve a violation of the elementary principles of natural justice.
12. In view of the above findings, we find substance in the Rule. This Court, accordingly, finds that the petitioner is legally entitled to have the government portion of monthly salary or MPO at the scale of Assistant Professor from May, 2003 onwards.
13. In the result, the Rule is made absolute. The respondents are, hereby, directed to pay the petitioner’s government portion of monthly salary or MPO at the salary scale of Assistant Professor from May, 2003 onwards.
There is no order as to costs
Communicate this Judgment at once.
(Concluded)
4. Mr Syed Mamun Mahbub, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner at the outset refutes that the petitioner did not at all possess a master’s degree at the time of joining. In this regard, he submits by reference in particular to the petitioner’s Supplementary Affidavit that although at the time of joining i.e., on 16-10-1995 the petitioner had master’s degree (3rd class) but subsequently he improved that qualification by getting his master’s degree (2nd class) on 10-8-1996. Therefore, the Managing Committee of Mirbagh Mahabiddaloy after complying with the requirements as enunciated in the ‘paripatra’ of the ???????? ?????? ?????????? (???????? ????) Gi ?????? ? ??????????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ????????? ???????? 1995 promoted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor of Department of Mathematics. Next, he submits that in the aforesaid premises the petitioner is legally entitled to salary at the rank of Assistant Professor instead of as Lecturer of Mirbagh Mahabiddaloy. But the respondents did not pay the same and have acted in an arbitrary manner. On closing his submissions Mr Mamun prays to make the Rule absolute.
5. Ms Israt Jahan, the learned Assistant Attorney General appearing for all the respondents submits that at the time of appointment the petitioner had not any master’s degree, therefore his promotion for the post of Assistant Professor was illegal and, accordingly, he has no right to get his salary at the scale of Assistant Professor.
6. We have gone through the writ petition and the petitioner’s Supplementary Affidavit along with all annexures, and also the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the respondent No.2 with annexures therein.
7. The core question before us is whether the petitioner as per provisions of law is entitled to get his salary at the scale of Assistant Professor instead of as Lecturer from May, 2003 onwards.
8. Before entering into the merit of the case, we first take a look into ‘???????? K of the ‘Paripatra’ of the ???????? ?????? ?????????? (???????? ????) ?? ?????? ? ??????????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ????????? ???????? ????????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ???????, ????, ??? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ????:
???????? ?
“???????? ?????? ????? (???????? ????) ?? ?????? ? ??????????? ???? ????? ???????, ???????? ? ???? ?????
?????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ??????? (???????) ???????? ???? ????? ???????
? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ??????/ ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????????? ???????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????/????? ?????? ????? ????????? ?????? ??????????? ??????? ??? ? ?????? ????????? ???????? ???? ????
9. The statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner has been promoted without qualifying as per the mandatory requirement of ???????? ‘?’ of the ‘Paripatra’ of the ???????? ?????? ?????????? (???????? ????) ?? ?????? ? ??????????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ????????? ???????? published by the Ministry of Education on 24th October, 1995 is not correct. In the present case, the petitioner after fulfilling the aforesaid criterion/requirement pertaining to “??????? ???? ???????? ??????? (???????)” applied for the post of Assistant Professor. Then, the governing body of Mirbagh Mahabiddaloy having found the petitioner’s application as per ???????? ‘?’ of the ‘Paripatra’ of the ???????? ?????? ?????????? (???????? ????) ?? ?????? ? ??????????? ???? ??????? ?????? Ask ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ????????? ???????? published by the Ministry of Education on 24th October, 1995 accordingly promoted him to the post of Assistant Professor.
10. On the other hand, it appears from the office memo No. 7wR/09(K-3)/2007/7856/2 31-5-2010 that the respondent No.3 rejected the petitioner’s entitlement of salary at the scale of Assistant Professor on the ground that Òwb‡qvMKv‡j gvóvm© mb` wQj bvÓ| But nowhere in the aforesaid office memo dated 31-5-2010 the respondent No.2 either mentions or specifies any provision of law, which was violated by the governing body of Mirbagh Mahabiddaloy at the time of promoting the present petitioner. It is the duty of every person discharging the functions and duties of public office to pass his/her order/orders in clear language mentioning the specific provisions of law whenever applicable.
11. In light of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the governing body of Mirbagh Mahabiddaloy did not violate any provision of law as laid down in the ‘Paripatra’ by promoting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor. Thereafter, the inaction of the respondents manifested in not giving the petitioner’s government portion of monthly salary or MPO at the salary scale of Assistant Professor is found to be without legal authority. The same also reflects an arbitrary abdication of duty by a public authority and the facts and circumstances also involve a violation of the elementary principles of natural justice.
12. In view of the above findings, we find substance in the Rule. This Court, accordingly, finds that the petitioner is legally entitled to have the government portion of monthly salary or MPO at the scale of Assistant Professor from May, 2003 onwards.
13. In the result, the Rule is made absolute. The respondents are, hereby, directed to pay the petitioner’s government portion of monthly salary or MPO at the salary scale of Assistant Professor from May, 2003 onwards.
There is no order as to costs
Communicate this Judgment at once.
(Concluded)
