Decided on August 18,2009

Secretary, Ministry Of Education Appellant
Mowlana Wahiduzzaman Respondents


MD.JOYNUL ABEDIN,J. - (1.) This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.4.2000 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 3623 of 1999 making the rule absolute.
(2.) The writ petitioner respondents filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the letter issued by the Senior Assistant Secretary, Section-16, Ministry of Education vide Memo No. SHANG-SHEEM/3HA:16/Miscellaneous2/98/516 (4) dated 7.6.1999 canceling the recognition of Noabenki Biralaksmi Kaderia Alim Madrasa and stoppage of payment of salary of its teachers and employees under Monthly Pay Order (M.P.O.) scheme on the averments that the said Madrasa was established on 1.1.1968 and it was given provisional recognition on 7.10.1977 and since then it was regularly renewed. The said Madrasa has a duly approved Managing Committee and its teachers including its Principal are all qualified and they have been enjoying the facility under the system of monthly Payment Order (M.P.O.). As a result 80% of the salary of the teachers and employees are paid by and received from the Government. At present the Madrasa has in total 298 students in Dakhil and Alim classes and 217 students in different Ebtedai Classes (from class I of V). The total number of students of the Madrasa now 515. It has a good Library and there is no other Madrasa within 17 Km radius of the Madrasa. There are at present 18 teachers and 4 employees. The Madrasa fulfilled al required conditions for its recognition and for the purpose of M.P.O. and its affairs are being managed by a Managing Committee duly approved by the Government and the Madrasa Education Board and the accounts of the Madrasa are also being regularly audited. Suddenly the writ respondent No.2 issued the impugned order vide the aforesaid Memo. Dated 7.6.1999 with reference to a purported inspection report of an inspection team although the said Madrasa fulfilled all required conditions. Further the writ respondent No.2 had no competence in law to cancel the recognition and to stop payment under M.P.O. scheme.
(3.) The writ respondent No.2 only contested the rule by filing affidavit-in-opposition supporting the impugned order stating that the Government being in overall control of the education system in the country it could also take the impugned action in addition to Madrasa Education Board.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.