Appellate Division
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh v Md. Shahjamal Sardar and others
Civil Appeal 73/2023 · Appeal allowed; leave petitions disposed of · Decided 2 July 2026
The Government appealed against a High Court Division judgment of 11.03.2019 in Writ Petition No. 14344 of 2017, and two leave petitions challenged the same judgment in Writ Petition No. 12977 of 2015. The writ petitioners, claiming to be Headmasters, taught in registered non-government primary schools taken over by the government from 01.01.2013 under the Primary Schools (Taking Over) Act, 1974. The Rules, 2013 counted 50 percent of their earlier service as effective service period and, by Rule 9(1), placed them below the last directly recruited teacher. The High Court Division upheld Rule 2(ga) but declared that part of Rule 9(1) illegal and directed that they be treated as Headmasters. The Appellate Division held that effective service period governs seniority among nationalised teachers inter se only, so the impugned words were neither unreasonable nor contradictory. Mandamus could not issue, as the petitioners had not challenged the order of 10.11.2013 appointing them Assistant Teachers or shown an entitlement rooted in statute. The appeal was allowed.
- Whether the part of Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 2013 placing nationalised teachers below the last directly recruited teacher is illegal and without lawful authority.
- Whether the effective service period under Rule 2(ga) determines seniority between direct recruits and nationalised teachers.
- Whether a mandamus could issue directing that the writ petitioners be treated as Headmasters.
- Under Rule 9(2) of the Rules, 2013, the effective service period (50 percent of continuous pre-nationalisation service) is counted for seniority among nationalised teachers inter se only, not between direct recruits and nationalised teachers.
- The words of Rule 9(1) placing a nationalised teacher below the last teacher directly recruited under the 1991 recruitment rules immediately before his appointment under Rule 4 are neither unreasonable nor contradictory.
- The seniority of direct recruits runs from their initial date of joining, while that of nationalised or absorbed teachers runs from the date of nationalisation or of their substantive absorption.
- The government's recognition of past service as effective service period was a policy decision, not a statutory obligation.
- A mandamus to treat the writ petitioners as Headmasters was not maintainable where they had not challenged the office orders of 10.11.2013, 23.02.2020 and 12.08.2020 and had not shown that their entitlement was rooted in statute.
the High Court Division erred in law by giving direction upon the appellant-writ respondents to treat the respondents-writ petitioners as Headmaster when they failed to show that their entitlement to be treated as Headmaster is rooted in statute
