(From previous issue) :
11. From a perusal of the materials on record it appears emphatically that the question of absorption arid regularization of teacher and other staffs’ who were appointed temporarily under the respondents had come up for decision in Writ Petition No. 8907 of 2009 and 3187 of 2010 wherein the Rules issued were made absolute with a direction upon the respondent concerned to regularize/absorb the services of the petitioners against vacant permanent post. It would be profitable to refer to the relevant paragraphs from Writ Petition No. 8907 of 2009, which reads as under:
“We have examined the materials on record and also considered the submissions of the learned Advocate of the respective parties.
12. On examination of the paragraph No.3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 19-1-2011 wherein details of the petitioners including the date of birth have been furnished. We find that except the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were below 30 years of age on the date of appointment. From Annexure-H to the said affidavit, it appears that the petitioners are serving in different posts admittedly and, as such, the alleged circular fixing the age limit is not applicable for the petitioners.
13. On examination of the Annexure-‘G’ series, we find that the different department including the Military-Department has relaxed the age limit in case of the employees in service and admittedly the petitioners have been rendering the services without any stigma or allegation since 1999 and they gathered experience while serving in the department and in such circumstances, the experience of the petitioners cannot he ignored.”
14. In the aforesaid case it has further been. observed as follows:
“On perusal of employment notice published by Military Land and Establishments and Bangladesh Tele-communication Regulatory Commission as contained in Annexure-G series, it appears that in the said Notifications the authorities relaxed the age limit in case of departmental candidates and similarly, Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation took the decision to give appointment to departmental experienced employees up to age of 45 years and in such circumstances, the case of petitioner No.3 can be considered. The decisions referred to above in the facts and circumstances of the present case before us are applicable.
15. The respondents have not annexed the inquiry report of the committee but from the facts stated in the affidavit-in-opposition and the submissions of the learned Advocate, it transpires that the authorities did not take into consideration the date of appointment of the petitioners No.1 and 4-16 who were admittedly appointed below 30 years of age and since then they have been serving in the department and, as such, the alleged bar of 30 years will not be applicable to those petitioners as a departmental experienced employees in service and they may be treated as permanent employees of BJMC as per approval of the concerned Ministry dated 4-7-2000 (Annexue-B-1).
16. Upon overall reappraisal of the materials on· record, we find great deal of substance in the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioners and thereby, the petitioners are entitled to be treated as permanent employees of BJMC as per approval of the concerned Ministry dated 4-7-2000 (Annexure-B-1).
17. In the result, the Rule is made absolute without any order as to cost.
18. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioners as permanent employees of BJMC as per approval of the concerned Ministry dated 4-7-2000.”
19. Again in Writ Petition No. 3187 of 2010 it has been observed as underneath:
“We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of respective parties and perused the application, its annexures, supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners and affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No.6 and 8.
Admittedly, the petitioners started their career with the respondents prior to the change in policy relating to absorption.
It appears that the respondent No.2 took a decision that the employees working temporarily and on daily basis would be absorbed and regularized step by step. For felicity of reference the relevant portion of the decision is quoted below.
?????? ???? ??-???.??/??-??? ????? ???????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????
?????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????????????? ?????????? ??? ???? ???????? ???????? ????? ???? ????????? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ??????????? ??????, ????????, ???????? ???????, ??? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ¯’???????? ????? ????????? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ??¯’???/????? ??????? ?? (???-?)/???,????? ??-?-???? ?? ??????? ? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?-?-???? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ?????/??????? ?????? ??? ?? ?
????? ? ???????
?? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???-??? ??? ??????? ????? ??????
?? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ????? ? ?? ????????? ???, ?????? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???, ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ????
?? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????? ????????? ?? ? ?? (????????????? ???????? ????????) ???? ?? ???? ??? ??š’ ???????? ???, ??????? ??¯’?? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????????? ???? ????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ???? ??¯’?? ??????? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?”??????? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ?????
?? ???? ??? ??? ???????????? ??????? ?? ?????, ?? ??? ????? ??????? ????????? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ?????
?????? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ????????? ???? ?????????? ??? ??? ?????????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ????????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?-?-???? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?????????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ??????????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ????????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ????????? ??????? ???? ??? ????????? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ????????? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ( ???? ????, ????, ????? ???????, ????? ???????, ?????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ????????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???
20. The petitioners have been working under the respondents on daily wage basis for the last several years and by this time they have crossed the age limit for being appointed in any Government service or any local body. The petitioners’ service in the respective posts were to the utmost satisfaction of the authority concerned and any change in policy cannot and should not affect the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioners who have earlier been appointed when they were found to be suitable for the post in question.
21. As observed in Rabia Bashri Irene vs Bangladesh Biman 52 DLR 308, policy change cannot and should not affect the terms and conditions of those who had been appointed prior to the policy change.
22. The power of absorption, no doubt, is discretionary but is coupled with the duty not to act arbitrarily, or at the whim or caprice of any individual. There is nothing on record to indicate that for any reason whatsoever, the petitioners were not required or fit to be absorbed.
It will be wholly unjust and unfair to reject a candidate for regularization on the ground that he did not possess the minimum educational qualifications and physical fitness at the time when the candidate was selected and after taking work from the same person on the same post on which he is seeking regularization without any complaint for a long time. It will be wholly unfair to hold him ineligible for regularization at such distance of time where the employees have worked for years together in the same post and have worked in such posts without any complaint, they should not be denied regularization on the ground that they do not possess requisite minimum educational qualifications prescribed for regular appointment on that post on the day they are considered for regularization.
23. At the time of delivery of judgment Mr. Md. Jamal Hossain, the learned Advocate for the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit praying for discharging the Rule so far as it relates to the petitioners No. 1,2, 7, 9, 13,14 & 17 for non prosecution. as the matter has been settled out of Court between the parties. Consequently, the Rule is discharged for non prosecution so far as it relates to the petitioners 1,2,7,9, 13, 14 & 17.
24. In view of the discussions made in the body of the judgment, the rest of the petitioners have made out a case for regularization of their services.
25. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute. The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners against vacant permanent posts as and when vacancy arises, subject to the condition that they do not otherwise disqualify.
26. There is however, no order as to cost.”
27. Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid discussions that the issue raised in the instant Rules has already been-settled by this division in more than one occasion. Since the matter in issue has finally been resolved by this division, we find no reason to deviate ourselves from the same as we are in full agreement with the verdict rendered in the above cases.
28. In the premises we find merit in these Rules and accordingly, they are made absolute.
29. The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners against vacant permanent post as an when the Vacancy arises, subject to the condition that they do not otherwise disqualify.
However, there would be no order at to costs.
(Concluded)
11. From a perusal of the materials on record it appears emphatically that the question of absorption arid regularization of teacher and other staffs’ who were appointed temporarily under the respondents had come up for decision in Writ Petition No. 8907 of 2009 and 3187 of 2010 wherein the Rules issued were made absolute with a direction upon the respondent concerned to regularize/absorb the services of the petitioners against vacant permanent post. It would be profitable to refer to the relevant paragraphs from Writ Petition No. 8907 of 2009, which reads as under:
“We have examined the materials on record and also considered the submissions of the learned Advocate of the respective parties.
12. On examination of the paragraph No.3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 19-1-2011 wherein details of the petitioners including the date of birth have been furnished. We find that except the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were below 30 years of age on the date of appointment. From Annexure-H to the said affidavit, it appears that the petitioners are serving in different posts admittedly and, as such, the alleged circular fixing the age limit is not applicable for the petitioners.
13. On examination of the Annexure-‘G’ series, we find that the different department including the Military-Department has relaxed the age limit in case of the employees in service and admittedly the petitioners have been rendering the services without any stigma or allegation since 1999 and they gathered experience while serving in the department and in such circumstances, the experience of the petitioners cannot he ignored.”
14. In the aforesaid case it has further been. observed as follows:
“On perusal of employment notice published by Military Land and Establishments and Bangladesh Tele-communication Regulatory Commission as contained in Annexure-G series, it appears that in the said Notifications the authorities relaxed the age limit in case of departmental candidates and similarly, Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation took the decision to give appointment to departmental experienced employees up to age of 45 years and in such circumstances, the case of petitioner No.3 can be considered. The decisions referred to above in the facts and circumstances of the present case before us are applicable.
15. The respondents have not annexed the inquiry report of the committee but from the facts stated in the affidavit-in-opposition and the submissions of the learned Advocate, it transpires that the authorities did not take into consideration the date of appointment of the petitioners No.1 and 4-16 who were admittedly appointed below 30 years of age and since then they have been serving in the department and, as such, the alleged bar of 30 years will not be applicable to those petitioners as a departmental experienced employees in service and they may be treated as permanent employees of BJMC as per approval of the concerned Ministry dated 4-7-2000 (Annexue-B-1).
16. Upon overall reappraisal of the materials on· record, we find great deal of substance in the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioners and thereby, the petitioners are entitled to be treated as permanent employees of BJMC as per approval of the concerned Ministry dated 4-7-2000 (Annexure-B-1).
17. In the result, the Rule is made absolute without any order as to cost.
18. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioners as permanent employees of BJMC as per approval of the concerned Ministry dated 4-7-2000.”
19. Again in Writ Petition No. 3187 of 2010 it has been observed as underneath:
“We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of respective parties and perused the application, its annexures, supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners and affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No.6 and 8.
Admittedly, the petitioners started their career with the respondents prior to the change in policy relating to absorption.
It appears that the respondent No.2 took a decision that the employees working temporarily and on daily basis would be absorbed and regularized step by step. For felicity of reference the relevant portion of the decision is quoted below.
?????? ???? ??-???.??/??-??? ????? ???????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????
?????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????????????? ?????????? ??? ???? ???????? ???????? ????? ???? ????????? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ??????????? ??????, ????????, ???????? ???????, ??? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ¯’???????? ????? ????????? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ??¯’???/????? ??????? ?? (???-?)/???,????? ??-?-???? ?? ??????? ? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?-?-???? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ?????/??????? ?????? ??? ?? ?
????? ? ???????
?? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???-??? ??? ??????? ????? ??????
?? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ????? ? ?? ????????? ???, ?????? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???, ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ????
?? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????? ????????? ?? ? ?? (????????????? ???????? ????????) ???? ?? ???? ??? ??š’ ???????? ???, ??????? ??¯’?? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????????? ???? ????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ???? ??¯’?? ??????? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?”??????? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ?????
?? ???? ??? ??? ???????????? ??????? ?? ?????, ?? ??? ????? ??????? ????????? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ?????
?????? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ????????? ???? ?????????? ??? ??? ?????????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ????????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?-?-???? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?????????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ??????????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ????????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ????????? ??????? ???? ??? ????????? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ????????? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ( ???? ????, ????, ????? ???????, ????? ???????, ?????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ????????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???
20. The petitioners have been working under the respondents on daily wage basis for the last several years and by this time they have crossed the age limit for being appointed in any Government service or any local body. The petitioners’ service in the respective posts were to the utmost satisfaction of the authority concerned and any change in policy cannot and should not affect the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioners who have earlier been appointed when they were found to be suitable for the post in question.
21. As observed in Rabia Bashri Irene vs Bangladesh Biman 52 DLR 308, policy change cannot and should not affect the terms and conditions of those who had been appointed prior to the policy change.
22. The power of absorption, no doubt, is discretionary but is coupled with the duty not to act arbitrarily, or at the whim or caprice of any individual. There is nothing on record to indicate that for any reason whatsoever, the petitioners were not required or fit to be absorbed.
It will be wholly unjust and unfair to reject a candidate for regularization on the ground that he did not possess the minimum educational qualifications and physical fitness at the time when the candidate was selected and after taking work from the same person on the same post on which he is seeking regularization without any complaint for a long time. It will be wholly unfair to hold him ineligible for regularization at such distance of time where the employees have worked for years together in the same post and have worked in such posts without any complaint, they should not be denied regularization on the ground that they do not possess requisite minimum educational qualifications prescribed for regular appointment on that post on the day they are considered for regularization.
23. At the time of delivery of judgment Mr. Md. Jamal Hossain, the learned Advocate for the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit praying for discharging the Rule so far as it relates to the petitioners No. 1,2, 7, 9, 13,14 & 17 for non prosecution. as the matter has been settled out of Court between the parties. Consequently, the Rule is discharged for non prosecution so far as it relates to the petitioners 1,2,7,9, 13, 14 & 17.
24. In view of the discussions made in the body of the judgment, the rest of the petitioners have made out a case for regularization of their services.
25. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute. The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners against vacant permanent posts as and when vacancy arises, subject to the condition that they do not otherwise disqualify.
26. There is however, no order as to cost.”
27. Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid discussions that the issue raised in the instant Rules has already been-settled by this division in more than one occasion. Since the matter in issue has finally been resolved by this division, we find no reason to deviate ourselves from the same as we are in full agreement with the verdict rendered in the above cases.
28. In the premises we find merit in these Rules and accordingly, they are made absolute.
29. The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners against vacant permanent post as an when the Vacancy arises, subject to the condition that they do not otherwise disqualify.
However, there would be no order at to costs.
(Concluded)
