GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH Vs. MD. SHAMSUL HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 27-5-2003 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 2975 of 2003 directing the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs to produce the relevant papers containing the opinion of the learned Chief Justice of Bangladesh about the appointment of concerned six Judges through the Attorney-General at the time of hearing and further directing that all other Rules being Writ Petition Nos. 1543 of d 2003, 2975 of 2003 and 3217 of 2003 should come up in the list for hearing on 16-6-2003.

(2.) The facts, in short, are that the respondents filed the present writ petition impugning the non-appointment of the respondents as Judges of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh who functioned as Additional Judges of the, High Court Division for 2 years from 22nd February 2001 to 21st February 2003 whereupon Rule was issued calling upon the writ respondent to show cause as to why the non-appointment of aforesaid Additional Judges as permanent Judges should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority and why the writ-respondent should not be directed to appoint the writ-petitioners as the permanent Judges of the High Court Division with effect from 22nd February 2003.

(3.) The facts detailed in the petition, inter alia, are that 9 Additional Judges of the High Court Division were sworn in on 22nd February 2001 upon their appointment as such considering their performances. Out of said 9 such appointees only two were appointed as the judges of the High Court Division excluding the writ petitioners and others on 21-2-2003. Some learned Advocates including the president of the Bar and others met the learned Chief Justice and expressed concern of the members of the Bar and in course of discussion the learned Chief Justice stated that he had recommended for appointment of all the above mentioned Additional Judges as the Judges of the High Court Division. The Chief Justice as well on 21-2-2003 disclosed to two of the writ-petitioners about the said recommendation in their meeting with the Chief Justice and on 23rd February 2003 the fact of recommendation by the Chief Justice appeared in the newspaper that they having been found to be fit for appointment as Judges were accordingly recommended. But the President did not appoint them without giving or communicating any reason thereof, in manifest disregard of the recommendation of the Chief Justice which is beyond the constitutional framework and, as such, the non-appointment of the writ-petitioners have been done without any lawful authority and the writ-respondents should be directed to appoint the writ-petitioners to be the Judges of the High Court Division with effect from 22nd February 2003.