Article 4 & 25
|
The Dhaka University Order, 1973
Article 4 & 25 r/w
The Medical and Dental Council Ain, 2010
Section 43
Admission of Student decision involving policy–
It is now settled that the court will not interfere with policy decision
merely because it feels that another policy decision could have been fairer
or wiser or more scientific or logical (Balco Employees Union V. India,
2002 (2) SCC 3330). This court accepted the views taken in that case and we
find no cogent reason to differ from the same. Same principle is applicable
in case of admission of students, inasmuch as, it is the policy decision of
the University authority. Every organ of the State should be allowed to
perform its onerous responsibility in accordance with their respective
laws. If the court interferes with their internal administration and the
eligibility of admission of students in any University, this will
tantamount to exercise of a power not vested in law. The court should
refrain itself from interfering with the internal administration of an
authority if such authority does not contravene the law. .....VC,
University of Dhaka =VS= A.K.M. Muid, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 470]
....View Full Judgment
|
VC, University of Dhaka =VS= A.K.M. Muid |
3 LM (AD) 470 |
Article 20, 46 (17), 52
|
When any election is held in accordance with the provision of any statute
that election can be questioned only under the provision of that statute.
But when the election is held in violation of the provision of law such
election can be questioned in any other forum and not in the forum as
provided in that law. Dhaka University represented vs Mr Giasuddin Ahmied
Chowdhury @ Gias kamal Chowdhury (Mahmudul A ruin Choudhury C. J.) (Civil)
1 ADC 71
|
Dhaka University represented vs Mr Giasuddin Ahmied Chowdhury @ Gias kamal Chowdhury |
1 ADC 71 |
Section 45(4), 45(5), 45(3)
|
Re-instate service former post–– The writ-petitioner, in fact, has been
terminated from the service in the garb of clause-2 of the appointment
letter. ––Appellate Division does not find any error in the impugned
judgment apparent on the face of the record or that the courts attention
was not drawn to any particular statutory provision of law for which an
error has crept in the impugned judgment. Thus, there is no scope to review
the impugned judgment. Since the respondent No.1 is out of service he will
not get any previous financial benefit and promotion for the period of
which he was out of service. The Authority of University of Dhaka is
directed to re-instate him to his former post. .....University of Dhaka
=VS= Hafez Mohammad Jalaluddin Chy., (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 630]
....View Full Judgment
|
University of Dhaka =VS= Hafez Mohammad Jalaluddin Chy. |
14 LM (AD) 630 |
Statute 45 (4)
|
“Employee concerned”—Statute 45(4) of the first Statute is not
applicable to the plaintiff-respondent who was a Lower Division Assistant
of the University. [Para-8]
Dhaka University & Anr Vs. Syed Md. Ismail 4 BLT (AD)-249
|
Dhaka University & Anr Vs. Syed Md. Ismail |
4 BLT (AD) 249 |
Article 46
|
Article 46 of the First Statutes—
From Article 46 it is clear that if there is a notification by the
Registrar at the order of the Vice Chancellor that casting of votes will
take place at certain centres outside Dhaka on a certain date and time the
Presiding Officers are required to count the ballots immediately after the
close of polling and they are to send their reports to the Vice Chancellor
in detail who in turn after consolidation of the result is required to
announce the result. But here in the present case it appears that though
admittedly the polling in some centres took place outside Dhaka but those
were not counted there. They were sent to the Vice Chancellor and ballots
were counted in the University premises and the result announced. This is
contrary to the clear provision of Article 46 of the Statute and a flagrant
violation of the same.
Dhaka University and others vs Gias Kama! Chowdhury and others 7 BLC (AD)
53.
|
Dhaka University and others vs Gias Kama! Chowdhury and others |
7 BLC (AD) 53 |
Article 46(3)
|
Article 46(3) of the First Statutes—
In the present case nothing has been produced either before the High Court
Division or before the Appellate Division under what, circumstances this
election could not be held during the year in question and hence the
election held in 1999 for the year 1997-1998 violating the provisions of
Article 46(3) of the First Statutes is no election in the eye of law.
Dhaka University and others vs Gias Kamal Chowdhury 7 BLC (AD) 53.
|
Dhaka University and others vs Gias Kamal Chowdhury |
7 BLC (AD) 53 |
Article 46(l)(i)(e)(9)(16) and (17)
|
Article 46(l)(i)(e), (9), (16) and (17) clearly provides that counting must
be at the place of voting. If the polling is held outside Dhaka then the
ballots must be counted by the Presiding Officers at those polling centres.
There is no ambiguity in the law and as such there cannot be any compromise
on any legal provision and Annexure-17 dated 11-6-1999 cannot give any
authority to the Vice Chancellor to shift the counting to Dhaka from
outside polling centres. This is clearly against the provision of the
Statutes. Furthermore, sub-section (13) of this section has provided that
voting at each centre shall take place under the direction, control and
supervision of the Presiding Officer. So, when a Presiding Officer is
appointed it is his duty to ensure the casting of votes and also counting
of the same after close of the poll. But in the present case polling took
place in some centres outside Dhaka but in view of resolution Annexure-17
sealed covers containing ballot papers were brought to Dhaka and counted
here which is against the clear provision/intention of the law. The
questioned election has been conducted not in accordance with the
provisions of Dhaka University Order 1973 and the First Statutes and this
election is no election in the eye of law.
Dhaka University and others vs Gias Kamal Chowdhury and others 7 BLC (AD)
53.
|
Dhaka University and others vs Gias Kamal Chowdhury and others |
7 BLC (AD) 53 |
Article 46(17)(ii)
|
When the election that was held is no election in the eye of law the
provision of sub-article (17)(ii) of Article 46 of the First Statutes
providing that no election shall be called in question except by an
election petition has got no manner of application and in such a case an
aggrieved person can invoke the writ jurisdiction without exhausting the
alternative forum prescribed by law and the High Court Division has not
committed any wrong or illegality in holding that the writ petition is
maintainable.
Dhaka University and others vs Gias Kamal Chowdhury and others 7 BLC (AD)
53.
|
Dhaka University and others vs Gias Kamal Chowdhury and others |
7 BLC (AD) 53 |
Section 52
|
Technical ground cannot be any reason for not entertaining the
writ-petition– The writ-petitioner did not avail the efficacious remedy
as provided under section 52 of the University of Dhaka Order, 1973 which
provides for an appeal to the Chancellor and found out that the
writ-petitioner filed an appeal against the impugned order addressing the
Vice-Chancellor which was rejected. The High Court Division, considering
the facts and circumstances, found that the said appeal was preferred by
the writ-petitioner under the provision of section 52 of the Dhaka
University Order, 1973 which could have been and should have been forwarded
to the Chancellor by the Vice-Chancellor of the Dhaka University. The High
Court Division found that the writ-petitioner exhausted the provision of
section 52 of the Dhaka University Order, 1973 by preferring an appeal
against the impugned order and, therefore, the writ-petition was
maintainable.
We are of the opinion that where it has been found that the writ-petitioner
inspite of being innocent, was harassed so much by the Dhaka University
authority, this technical ground cannot be any reason for not entertaining
the writ-petition. That there is no merit in this appeal and hence this
appeal be dismissed on contest without any order as to cost. ...University
of Dhaka =VS= Ahmed Ar Razi, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 682]
....View Full Judgment
|
University of Dhaka =VS= Ahmed Ar Razi |
10 LM (AD) 682 |
Article 52
|
Regulation No. 7 of the Enquiry Committee and Tribunal (Teachers and
Officers) Regulations, 1980;
section 45(5) of the First Statute of the University of Dhaka and Article
52 of the Dhaka University Order, 1973:
In the instant case, prior to referring the allegations to the Enquiry
Committee set up by the Syndicate for enquiry into the allegations brought
against the petitioner, the Syndicate omitted to frame a formal charge
against the petitioner with a statement of the allegations on which the
charge is based and also specifying therein the penalty proposed to be
imposed in terms of Regulation No. 7 of the Enquiry Committee and Tribunal
(Teachers and Officers) Regulations, 1980 and hence, the entire exercise by
the respondent No. 2 University of Dhaka and its officials leading up to
the purported demotion of the petitioner in service by the Syndicate is
void ab-initio and, as such, non est in the eye of law, rendering the said
purported demotion to be without lawful authority and is of no legal
effect. Moreover, under section 45(5) of the First Statute of the
University of Dhaka only those orders of the Syndicate which are passed on
the recommendation of the Tribunal are appealable, whereas, in the instant
case, since the impugned order of demotion of the petitioner in service was
passed by the Syndicate without any recommendation of the Tribunal, there
is no appealable order from the Syndicate and, hence, no question of
preferring any appeal under Article 52 of the Dhaka University Order, 1973
arises and, thus, there is no applicability of the decision reported in 44
DLR (AD) 305 in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. ...Samia
Rahman Vs. Bangladesh and others, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 182
....View Full Judgment
|
Samia Rahman Vs. Bangladesh and others |
17 SCOB [2023] HCD 182 |
Article 52
|
Appeal to Chancellor— Not alternative efficacious remedy— Writ
jurisdiction may be invoked—
Any person aggrieved by an order of the authority of the University may
appeal to the Chancellor for redressment of grievance. The Chancellor then
decide the appeal after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
other-side or many appoint a Commission to enquire and report which are to
be routed through the Syndicate. The remedy by way of appeal is cumbersome
and is not efficacious and as such the writ jurisdiction of the High Court
Division under article 102 of the Constitution can well be invoked.
The Controller of Examination, Universiiy oj Dhaka Vs. Mohiuddin and
others. 12 BLD (AD) 309.
|
The Controller of Examination, University oj Dhaka Vs. Mohiuddin and others. |
12 BLD (AD) 309 |
Article 56(3)
|
Article 56(3) of the Dhaka University Order, 1973:
It is clear that the Syndicate did not frame any formal charge against the
petitioner under Article 56(3) of the Order, 1973. The committee formed by
the Syndicate cannot be termed as a statutory Enquiry Committee. It can be
termed as a fact-finding committee. Accordingly, the show cause notice
dated 08.06.2022 can be considered as a notice in relation to the
fact-finding committee, not a statutory notice forming part of a formal
disciplinary proceedings inasmuch as no formal disciplinary proceeding were
initiated against the petitioner. .....Prof. Dr. Md. Rahmat Ullah Vs.
Bangladesh & ors, (Spl. Original), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 140
It is true that the power to ‘appoint’ includes the power to
‘suspend’. It is well settled that an order of interim suspension can
be passed while a departmental enquiry is pending against the delinquent
even though there is no such term in the service rules. .....Prof. Dr. Md.
Rahmat Ullah Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Spl. Original), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 140
....View Full Judgment
|
Prof. Dr. Md. Rahmat Ullah Vs. Bangladesh & ors |
19 SCOB [2024] HCD 140 |
Article 56(3)
|
The Syndicate’s decision to release the petitioner temporarily from his
duties is beyond the purview of law:
In the instant case, the Syndicate did not deliberately use the term
‘suspension’ (সাময়িক বরখাস্ত), rather it used
the term ‘সাময়িক অব্যাহতি’ (temporary
release) which is not synonymous to ‘suspension’ for the reason that
the syndicate did not take any decision to initiate any formal departmental
proceedings against the petitioner by framing formal charge. The Syndicate
formed a committee which seems to be merely a factfinding committee. In our
view, there was no exigency or circumstances envisaged by law to release
the petitioner temporarily from his duties. Moreover, the term ‘temporary
release from duties’ is uncommon in service jurisprudence. The University
Order, Statutes and Service Regulations do not recognise such action.
Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Syndicate’s decision to
release the petitioner temporarily from his duties is beyond the purview of
law and the said decision was taken without lawful authority and without
jurisdiction. .....Prof. Dr. Md. Rahmat Ullah Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Spl.
Original), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 140
....View Full Judgment
|
Prof. Dr. Md. Rahmat Ullah Vs. Bangladesh & ors |
19 SCOB [2024] HCD 140 |
Article 56(3)
|
Constitution of fact finding committee—permissible—
Constitution of fact-finding committee for ascertaining the prima-facie
truth of the allegations being covered by article 56(3) of the Order is not
illegal and as such cannot be quashed.
A.H.Mahbubul Alam (Professor) Vs. The University of Dhaka and others. 2,
MLR (1997) (AD) 358.
|
A.H.Mahbubul Alam (Professor) Vs. The University of Dhaka and others. |
2 MLR (AD) 358 |
Article 59(2)
|
The respondent, a Lower Division Assistant of the University of Dhaka, was
removed from service for misconduct as he misconducted himself by violating
the service discipline in refusing to vacate the staff quarter illegally
occupied by him. Before removing him from service the University authority
thrice asked him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from
service for violation of service discipline. The respondent’s grievance
that his removal from service offends against the principle of natural
justice is without any substance.
Dhaka University and another Vs Syed Md. Ismail, 16 BLD (AD) 103.
|
Dhaka University and another Vs Syed Md. Ismail, |
16 BLD (AD) 103 |
Dismissed from Service
|
Dismissed from Service on the ground that they were convicted.
Workers and as such the writ petitions at their instance against their
dismissal from service were not maintainable without first approaching the
Labour Court for relief and in that view of the matter the judgment of the
High Court Division is liable to be set aside Meghna Textile Mills Ltd vs
Md. Barkatullah & others (4) (M. M. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 3ADC 32
|
Meghna Textile Mills Ltd vs Md. Barkatullah & others |
3 ADC 32 |
Disciplinary Action
|
Disciplinary Action against the officers and employees of the Board.
The settled principle of law is that seniority alone is not the sole
basis for promotion and that seniority does not create a claim for being
promoted although the same create a right in favour of an employee to
consider his case of promotion along with the case of others who are
posted in the similar situation. Promotion is to be earned by rendering
meritorious service and other than seniority promotion is also
conditioned by other factors, such as efficiency, good conduct, character,
integrity, sense of value, honesty and temperamental suitability.
Chairman, Board of lSE Jessore vs Md. Nazir Ahmed (Md. Ruhul Amin J)
(Civil) 3ADC 550
|
Chairman, Board of lSE Jessore vs Md. Nazir Ahmed |
3 ADC 550 |
Misconduct
|
Dhaka University Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Statutes
“Misconduct”—the plaintiff-respondent on 5-5-76 forcibly occupied
university staff quarter No. 40/C without any authority — The learned
Judge of the High Court Division failed to notice that the respondent was
removed from service for misconduct because he misconducted himself by
violating the service discipline in refusing to vacate staff quarter No.
40/C — dismissing the suit is restored. [Paras - 13 & 15]
Dhaka University & Anr Vs. Syed Md. Ismail 4 BLT (AD)-249.
|
Dhaka University & Anr Vs. Syed Md. Ismail |
4 BLT (AD) 249 |