Principal, Fulbaria College Mymensing
……………….Appeallant
vs
Md. Helaluddin and others
………………..Respondent
Judgement
March 23rd, 2010
Law Report of High Court Judgment 64 DLR 2012
Consititution of Bangladesh 1972, Article 102(2)
Since the write petitioner has acquired no right whatsover to draw higher scale or post, he is not entitled to ahearing and thus the authority has not violated the principles nature justice by reson of rfeduction f his pay pay scale and post.
JUDGEMENT
………
SK SINHA judge leave granted
1. This Appeal arose out of the following facts: the respondent no 1 a teacher of fulbaria college, mymensing instituted write petition no 3746 of 2003 in the high court division seeking a deeclaration to the effect that the decision for demotion of the write petitioner by the write respondents to the post o lecturer from the post of assistant professor of fulbaria college, mymensing and degrading his monthly pay scale from tk 7200 to tk 6150 top be declared without law full authority. Accourding to the writ petitioner, he joind the sahabuddin colleghe fulbaria mymensing as lecturer on 1st November, 1992 on month scale
of tk 3200. After Completion of 8 years in service of college authority on 21st December, 1999 recommended to the writ respondent no 3 for giving him next higher scale of pay the writ respondent no 2 promoted the writ petitioner
to the post of assistant professor and he was given a monthly salary in the scale of tk 7000 on and from 1st june, 2000. while he was drawing salary for the month of june, 20002 he found his name in the monthly pay order inthe batch of lecturers in the scale of tk 6150.thereupon, he made a representation to nthe authority but without any result and consequent upon which, he field the petition seeking the above reliefs.
2. The college authority, the respondent no 4, contested the writ petition by filling an affidavit in-opposition .Its claim is that the writ petitioner some how managed a letter from the acting principal of the college for giving him higher scale in the rank of assistant professor. when the fact was detected the governing body of the college wrote to the authority for amendment of his scale and accordingly his scale was re- fixed.the writ petitioner was junior to 15 teachers serving in the college and he was not entitled to higher scale.the writ petitions therefore, liable to be dismissed.
3.The high court division upon hearing the parties by the impugned judgment dated 28th april, 2003 made the role absolute and directed the writ respondent no 1 to issue MPO IN RESPECT OF THE WRIT PETITIONER IN THE SCALE OF TK 7200 with effect from may, 2002 and also directed the writ respondent no 4 to allow the writ petitioner top work as an assistant professor.the high court division observed that whatever facts the writ respondent no 4 stated in the affidavit was not the statement of the governing body had been drawing a HIGHER SCALE, he had accrued a right to enjoy higher scale which could not be taken away without affording him an opportunity of being heard, that the writ petitioner performed as a assistant professor and received a higher scale for about 23 month and therefore, the respondent no 4 could no say now that he was not promoted to the post of assistant professor and that the actions of writ respondents re fixing his scale is a reduction of rank without any sanction law.
4. Now the only question is whether the writ petitioner was legally entitled to a show cause notice before taking action against him the answer to this point rest upon determination of to points, firstly , whether the writ petit5ioner was legally promoted as assistant professor and secondly, whether the authority recommended for giving him higher scale of tk 7200 per month.
5.It is contended on behalf of the appellants that high court division erred in law in failing to consider that the governing body of the college being the controlling authority neither recommended or approad for the promotion of the writ petitioner and thus, he is not legally entitled to a higher rank and scale.the other point raised by the learned counsel is that the writ petitioner managed the recommendation for giving him higher rank and scale by suppressing the fact that he was not eligible for higher scale and salary by passing 15 senior teachers of the college who were eligible for the same before he was entitled to the scale.
6. the writ petitioner was given higher scale in pursuance of a letter issued, by the then principle in charge of the college in 19th april, 2000,annexure-d to the writ petition.this letter was addressed to the writ respondent no 2, the director general, secondary and higher secondary education adhidaptar, dhaka. in the said letter it is stated that the writ petitioner had been serving as a lecturer of chemistry for 8 years, and that as per riles, his scale should have been changed.pursuant to this letter he was allowed to draw salary in the scale of tk 7200 per month.Annexure-D does not show that the governing body has approad the proposal for giving him higher scale after completion of 8 years in service.there is also nothing in the said letter that he was promoted to the rank of assistant professor in the department of chemistry.the high court division noticed that as per regulation 4 gha framed in pursuance of the authrity of the national university act 1992, a teacher who has at least two second classes and 8 years who has at least two second classes and 8 years of experience asa teacher would be eligible to the post of an assistant professor annexure-D does not show that acting principle recommended for higher scale and promotion as per regulation 4 gha
details 64 DLR 2012 HIGH COURT OF BANGLADESH
