KHANDAKER JALALUDDIN Vs. MOST. JAMILA KHATUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.6.2005 of the High Court Division passed in Civil Revision No. 988 of 2000 discharging the Rule obtained challenging the judgment and order dated 25.10.1999 of the learned Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge), 1st Court, Sherpur passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.22 of 1999 reversing those of dated 16.6.1999 of the Assistant Judge, Makla, Sherpur passed in the Other Class Suit No.15 of 1999 rejecting the prayer for temporary injunction.

(2.) The respondent, as plaintiff, filed the above suit seeking declaration that the order dated 23.3.99 under the signature of the Head Master/Member Secretary of Dishari High School Managing Committee suspending her from the post of Assistant Teacher is illegal, void, collusive and not binding upon her and she is still in service, on the averments that she, on 7.9. 1989, joined Dishari High School on 7.9.1989 as an Assistant Teacher and since then she was performing her duties with good reputation; she orally prayed for study leave for her admission to B. Ed course which was allowed and then she was admitted to a non-Government B. Ed college, Mymensingh and that since the class of B. Ed course used to be held in the night, she without taking any leave, continued her B. Ed course after taking her classes at the school in the day and attending B. Ed class in the evening after going to Mymensingh and thereby continued both B. Ed Course and teaching since July, 1998; for the purpose of practice teaching of B. Ed Course from 17th December 1948, she on 14.12.1998 filed an application for leave with pay upto 30.4.99 which was granted subject to the approval of the Managing Committee and she after obtaining leave continued the B. Ed Course on Teaching Practice; she under the Regulation is entitle to get leave for her B. Ed Course but since there is no provision for leave at the time of teaching period of school she had to pray for part leave only for teaching of B. Ed Course; then the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 10, in collusion with the other defendants, holding a meeting of Managing Committee on 15.2.1999 and violating the Rules, took a resolution to the effect that the plaintiff is not entitled to get leave for a period of four months 15 days for B. Ed Training Course and that a notice be issued upon her to show cause as to why action should not be taken against her for absence from the school without leave; then a show cause notice was issued on 16.2.99 under the signature of the defendant No.10 which was received by her on 26.2.99 and on 4.3.99 she gave reply to the same. Then on 2.3.99, the Managing Committee sent a second show cause notice which was received by her on 6.3.99 and she gave reply to the same on 10.3.99; the Managing Committee, without considering the replies filed and violating the Rules of the Non-Government School illegally issued letter dated 23.3.99 signed by the defendant No.4 suspending her which she received on 4.4.99 and hence the suit. After filing of the suit the respondents filed an application praying for restraining the defendant from disturbing the performance of her duties as an Assistant Teacher and also from not removing her from the post of Assistant Teacher till disposal of the suit. The defendant Nos. 1-10, by filing written objection opposed the above prayer of injunction stating that the uit is premature and that the B. Ed Course Session started from 1.7.1998 but the plaintiff remained absent from 16.12.98 without permission of the managing Committee and thereafter the Managing Committee took a resolution on 10.3.99 for suspending her on and from 1.3.99 and constituted a 3 members Enquiry Committee with direction to submit a report within 30 days and then the Chairman of the Enquiry Committee issued a notice upon the plaintiff requesting her to remain present before the Enquiry Committee with her paper and the plaintiff before any final order of the Enquiry Committee filed the present suit.

(3.) The learned Assistant Judge, after hearing, rejected prayer for temporary injunction. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge), after hearing, allowed the appeal and thereby granted temporary injunction. As against that the defendant petitioners moved the High Court Division and obtained Rule in Civil Revision No. 988 of 2000 and the High Court Division after hearing discharged the Rule.