ANJOLI RANI PAUL Vs. BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On an application under Article 102 of the Constitution, the Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned Memo No.

(2.) The short facts for the purpose of disposal of the Rule as stated in the Writ Petition, are that the respondent no. 2 being the Director General of Primary Education published an advertisement in the National Daily Newspaper (Prothom Alo) on 06.02.2008 inviting applications for appointment of Assistant Teachers for Government Primary School throughout the country. The petitioner applied for appearing in the examination wherein admit card no.7465 was issued in her name. On finding her qualified in both the written and the viva voce examinations the respondent no. 4 on 26.04.2009 issued an appointment letter in her favour with a direction to join as an Assistant Teacher in Keshabpur N. S. Government Primary School, Bauphal, Patuakhali. Subsequently the office of the respondent no. 4 issued an amended letter of appointment on 25.05.2009 directing the petitioner to join at Dakkhin Konokdia Government Primary School, Bauphal, Patuakhali as an Assistant Teacher [Annexure-C(2) to the Writ Petition]. In compliance with the amended letter of appointment the petitioner went to the designated school on 20.05.2009 for joining to the selected post but without assigning any reason her joining was not accepted by the respondents. Thereafter the petitioner came to know that her appointment had been cancelled by the respondent no. 4 and that an office order dated 22.07.2009 was issued to that effect. Challenging the said decision of cancellation of the appointment the petitioner moved this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction. During the pendency of the Rule issued in Writ Petition No. 7090 of 2009 it was conveyed to the petitioner that in the event she withdrew the Writ Petition her case would be considered by the respondents. Accordingly the Rule issued in Writ Petition No. 7090 of 2009 was discharged for non-prosecution at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the respondents on several occasions to take initiative for her joining and lastly when they failed to do so on 05.05.2015 she served a notice demanding justice requesting the respondents to accept her joining but the same yielded no result. The petitioner eventually moved this Court and obtained the Rule as stated above.

(3.) Mr. Golam Mohiuddin, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that although the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher through a transparent appointment process, her joining was not accepted illegally. The learned Advocate submits further that the impugned order of cancellation of the appointment was issued without giving any notice to the petitioner and providing her any opportunity of being heard which is violative of the principle of natural justice. The learned Advocate lastly submits that the petitioner was not dismissed, removed or suspended from the post of Assistant Teacher of the Government Primary School but her very appointment was cancelled illegally and thus the Writ Petition is maintainable inasmuch as the action of the authorities was malafide which is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.