- (1.) The present petition has been preferred mainly for getting salary for the period running from December, 1991 to 15th November, 2000 and it is vehemently submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were legally appointed as Teachers in the Madarsa, who are qualified to teach upto the primary school level. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Teacher on 12th April, 1973 and petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Teacher on 25th March, 1977 and, thereafter, they have achieved all the legal qualifications for the appointment of the Teachers at Madarsa. Even, for the period running from 1973 to 1991, salary was paid to them and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred for issuance of writ of Mandamus upon the respondents for getting salary from December, 1991 to 15th November, 2000.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents, who has vehemently submitted that the petitioners' dates of birth are 20th June, 1961 and 13th March, 1965 respectively. Thus, as on date of appointment, they were minors and they were appointed illegally. Moreover, they were not possessing even necessary qualification for the appointment of a Teacher. They cleared their Matriculation examinations from S.S. High School, Pakuria in the year, 1979 and 1980 respectively. Thus, as on date of appointment, petitioner No. 1 namely Manjar Alam must be in Std. V whereas petitioner No. 2 namely, Zahur Alam must be in Std. VII or VIII. This type of appointment is totally dehors the law. Over and above minority, there is no qualification at all with the petitioners. It is also contended by learned Counsel for the respondents that as the father of the petitioners was the Secretary of the Madarsa School, the petitioners were appointed illegally during their minority, both were aged about 12 years as on date of their appointment as Teacher. In view of these facts, the petitioners were not entitled for relieve, as prayed.
(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) Petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 12th April, 1973 and petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 25th March, 1977 as Teachers in the Madarsa and their dates of birth are 20th June, 1961 and 13th March, 1965 respectively. Thus, both were aged about 12 years when they were appointed. This is the grosses illegality in the appointment that minors cannot be appointed at this age as a Teacher. (ii) Both the petitioners have cleared their Matriculation examinations from S.S. High School, Pakuria in the year 1979 and 1980 respectively. Thus, when they were appointed as Teachers, petitioner No. 1 must be approximately in Std. V and petitioner No. 2 must be approximately in Std. VII or VIII. Thus, both the petitioners were not even qualified for the appointment of Teachers. In view of these facts, which are not denied by the petitioners, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. (iii) It also appears that a highly influential person was the nearest relative of the present petitioners, who held the post of the Secretary of the Madarsa, where petitioners appointing. (iv) Such appointments are nothing, but, fraud. Once there is fraudulent appointment, no relief can be granted, as prayed, in this petition. Fraud vitiates the whole proceedings of appointment. In fact, appointment of petitioners as Teacher is no appointment, in eye of law. Therefore, no relief can be given, on the basis of such appointment.;