Strengthening the education system is crucial for building a strong nation, and Bangladesh’s government is actively working toward this goal. One of their strategies involves implementing the M.P.O. (Monthly Payment Order) policy to support employees in primary and secondary schools and encourage their efforts. However, it is important to note that this policy is not an automatic right; certain criteria must be fulfilled for institutions to benefit from it. In a specific case, the law was applied to examine the relationship between state policies and emerging rights in this context. The judgment from the appellate court provides a clear insight into the executive’s responsibilities when it comes to such policies.

Fact of the case

Decided on 01.02.2023, the appellant of the case was “Bangladesh and Ors”. On the other hand, the respondent was “Char Elisha Junior High School and Ors.”. In short, the school authority has made an application to obtain an M.P.O facility as they have a profound reputation in the particular area for better education. After making several attempts of Appointments to get the benefit, the school authority did not succeed. Not being able to find other remedies, the authority filed a Writ Petition No. 12927 of 2016 before the High Court Division. “Nisi Rule” was obtained by the writ petitioner. Due to the lack of response from the government side, the rule was in action. A Division Bench of the High Court Division upon hearing the parties made the Rule absolute by the impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2017. The government party felt they were violated, and it was not a proper decision from the High Court. It invades the application of the law, it is not the executive’s duty to pay the institution M.P.O benefit, as they do not fill up the criteria. Previously, the school authority was not able to make a clear standpoint regarding why they are entitled to the benefit from the government.

This led to the writ-respondents, the present appellant, Government of Bangladesh filing their case in the Appellate Division. The only issue in this appeal was whether the High Court Division in exercising the power under Article 102 of the Constitution can direct the Government to enlist the writ petitioner’s institutions in the MPO list.

According to the Constitution of Bangladesh, Article 102, sub-article (2)(a)(ii), declaring that any act is done or proceeding taken by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Republic or of a local authority, has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect, is known as a writ of Mandamus. Simply put, in this type of writ, it creates pressure for the executive to perform their supposed duty.

The Honorable Appellate Division provided some meaningful thoughts on the duty that the government has. The decision to grant MPO (Monthly Pay Order) is a government policy, so the petitioners cannot automatically demand it as a right. The Court opined that teachers and staff at Non-Government Schools and Colleges cannot insist on MPO as an unquestionable entitlement. Therefore, the court is not authorized to issue a directive unless there is a clear breach of legal rights or a violation of the law.

Also, the High Court Division ordered the government to pay salaries even though the government had not agreed to it. However, the court cannot issue such an order without a clear legal obligation. Recognition or institution status does not automatically mean the government must pay salaries. The court cannot force salary payments without the government’s prior approval.

The Appellate Division strongly agreed that the writ decision of the High Court Division was not proper and suffered from illegality and infirmity. So, the appeal was taken into consideration, and the impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2017 passed by the High Court Division was hereby.