SC clears way for appointing headmasters to 32,000 govt primary schools across country

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has cleared the way for appointing headmasters to nearly 32,000 government primary schools nationwide in a case concerning seniority and promotion rules.

A bench led by Chief Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury passed the order after overturning a High Court verdict that had declared part of the provisions on seniority and promotion under the Teachers (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules for Acquired Non-Government Primary Schools unlawful, Attorney General Md Ruhul Quddus Kazal said while briefing the media at his office after the verdict yesterday (2 July). 

“The judgement has been delivered in favour of the government and the state. In other words, the High Court’s judgement no longer stands. Under the law, teachers recruited directly to government service will rank above those who joined from acquired non-government primary schools. Today’s [yesterday] judgement has affirmed that legal position,” he said. 

Nearly 32,000 primary schools have been without headmasters due to the legal complications, forcing local authorities to assign someone to perform duties on an interim basis, he said, adding that the government could neither appoint nor transfer head teachers because of the case. 

“Following today’s verdict, those complications will be resolved. The government will now be able to appoint headmasters, and administrative order will be restored,” he said.

According to lawyers involved in the case, the government promulgated the Teachers (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules for Acquired Non-Government Primary Schools on 29 September 2013.

Before that, a committee formed to prepare the framework for nationalising non-government primary schools selected 26,193 schools for consideration and later those schools were nationalised.

In 2017, a writ petition had been filed with the High Court challenging part of rule 9(1) of the Rules, which deals with seniority and promotion.

On 11 March 2019, the court passed an order, declaring the relevant part of rule 9(1) inconsistent with the constitution, prompting the state to file a leave-to-appeal against the judgement. 

After accepting the appeal on 20 November 2022, the Appellate Division stayed the High Court order