SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FOREST, BANGLADESH Vs. SHAHA MD. NURUL ISLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by leave is against judgment and order dated 18.2.1997 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 689 of 1995 making the Rule Absolute.

(2.) The short fact leading to this petition is that the Writ petitioner respondent moved the High Court Division alleging that he was a Class-1 Gazetted officer under the Ministry of Defence and was appointed as Director, National Cadet Corps in 1980 and thereafter that post was abolished and as a surplus personnel he was absorbed in the Ministry of Establishment and at their order worked in different Ministries as Section Officer. He was permanently absorbed in the Ministry of Agriculture on 27.2.1986. In the meantime the writ petitioner passed different examinations as required under the departmental rules and was then posted at the Environment and Forest Ministry. Thereafter the writ petitioner respondent was appointed to act as Sub-Divisional Forest Officer. A gradation list was prepared and his position was numbered as 107 but he claimed that his position would be above 103 officers. Ultimately a list was prepared for promoting 12 officers in which the name of the petitioner did not find place. He made several representations but without success and when a notification was issued giving promotion to 12 officers junior to him the respondent moved the High Court division in Writ Petition No.689 of 1995 challenging order dated 18.12.1994.

(3.) Before the High Court Division the present appellant entered appearance and filed affidavit-in-opposition and their case is that the appointment of the respondent was irregular and he was illegally absorbed in the year 1986. Their further case is that as his absorption was irregular the writ petitioner ought not to have been kept in the cadre in the Ministry of Environment and without consulting the Public Service Commission the Writ petitioner was absorbed in the Ministry of Establishment and as such his case should not be considered. It has also been alleged that the writ petitioner was absorbed violating the provision of Surplus Public Servant Absorption Ordinance, 1985. Their objection is that as the writ petitioner has challenged his seniority in the service which is in respect of terms and conditions of his service he ought to have moved the Administrative Tribunal and not the High Court Division in writ jurisdiction.