Denying regularisation of addl HC judge challenged
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
The High Court Tuesday issued a two-pronged rule upon the government to explain why the non-appointment of an additional judge as regular judge of the HC on completion of the service without any fault should not be declared illegal, reports UNB.
A division bench comprising Justice Khademul Islam and Justice Mashuque Hosain Ahmed issued the rule following a writ petition filed by Abdus Salam Mamun, an ex- additional judge of the High Court.
The court also asked the respondents to show cause as to why a direction should not be given to appoint the petitioner as a regular judge with retrospective effect since January 27, 2005.
The rules are made returnable in two weeks.
Since the President is the appointing authority of the judges of the Supreme Court, the petitioner made him one of the respondents along with the Secretary of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs.
The petitioner challenged the "mala-fide action" and "illegality" committed by the respondents in not confirming/appointing him as regular judge under Article 95 of the Constitution on completion of the service as an additional judge without any fault.
The petitioner submitted that he along with ten persons took oath of office as additional judges on July 29, 2002 for a two-year term.
On July 28, 2004, bar the petitioner, the services of ten additional judges of the same batch had been confirmed by the President under Article 95 of the Constitution, the petitioner pointed out.
He submitted that, instead of confirmation, he was given a letter of appointment as an additional judge for a further period of six months. But he had abstained from taking a fresh oath of office for an extended period as he ought to have been confirmed as a regular judge.
He further submitted that he has reasons to believe that "there was nothing, in fact there could be nothing", in his personal file with the authorities which would make him ineligible to be a regular judge as he had performed his duties "with competence and with total integrity".
The justice-seeking justice pleaded that the impugned action of the respondents was "contrary to the rules of natural justice" as he was not notified of his non-appointment and any reasons thereof nor was he given any opportunity of dealing with any procedure or other reasons for non-appointment.
He also mentioned the July 17 High Court verdict on a triple-writ petition that had declared illegal and unconstitutional the BNP-led government's not confirming the services of 10 additional HC judges appointed during the rule of Awami League despite the Chief Justice's positive recommendations.
It had also directed the government to reappoint them as regular judges with seniority within one month.
Barrister Masood R Sobhan assisted by Fatema Chowdhury and Zahirul Islam appeared for Salam, also an ex-special public prosecutor and former junior government attorney.
A division bench comprising Justice Khademul Islam and Justice Mashuque Hosain Ahmed issued the rule following a writ petition filed by Abdus Salam Mamun, an ex- additional judge of the High Court.
The court also asked the respondents to show cause as to why a direction should not be given to appoint the petitioner as a regular judge with retrospective effect since January 27, 2005.
The rules are made returnable in two weeks.
Since the President is the appointing authority of the judges of the Supreme Court, the petitioner made him one of the respondents along with the Secretary of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs.
The petitioner challenged the "mala-fide action" and "illegality" committed by the respondents in not confirming/appointing him as regular judge under Article 95 of the Constitution on completion of the service as an additional judge without any fault.
The petitioner submitted that he along with ten persons took oath of office as additional judges on July 29, 2002 for a two-year term.
On July 28, 2004, bar the petitioner, the services of ten additional judges of the same batch had been confirmed by the President under Article 95 of the Constitution, the petitioner pointed out.
He submitted that, instead of confirmation, he was given a letter of appointment as an additional judge for a further period of six months. But he had abstained from taking a fresh oath of office for an extended period as he ought to have been confirmed as a regular judge.
He further submitted that he has reasons to believe that "there was nothing, in fact there could be nothing", in his personal file with the authorities which would make him ineligible to be a regular judge as he had performed his duties "with competence and with total integrity".
The justice-seeking justice pleaded that the impugned action of the respondents was "contrary to the rules of natural justice" as he was not notified of his non-appointment and any reasons thereof nor was he given any opportunity of dealing with any procedure or other reasons for non-appointment.
He also mentioned the July 17 High Court verdict on a triple-writ petition that had declared illegal and unconstitutional the BNP-led government's not confirming the services of 10 additional HC judges appointed during the rule of Awami League despite the Chief Justice's positive recommendations.
It had also directed the government to reappoint them as regular judges with seniority within one month.
Barrister Masood R Sobhan assisted by Fatema Chowdhury and Zahirul Islam appeared for Salam, also an ex-special public prosecutor and former junior government attorney.