The High Court on Tuesday questioned the legality of a controversial clause of a Bangladesh Bank recruitment circular issued on December 1, 2019, to appoint officers in 188 posts of ‘Assistant Director (General)’.
The court issued a rule upon the respondents to explain in four weeks as to why the clause 14 of the recruitment circular purporting to include an eligibility criterion for all 'married female candidates' to provide their husband’s residential address as their permanent address should not be declared illegal.
The court also wanted to know in the rule as to why the respondents should not be directed to delete clause no 14 from the circular and publish a fresh circular without the said clause calling for new applications for the said posts by scheduling a new date for the examination.
The High Court bench of Justice JBM Hassan and Justice Md Khairul Alam passed the order after hearing a writ petition filed challenging the legality of the controversial clause of the circular.
Public Administration Secretary, Commerce secretary, Finance Division Secretary and Deputy Governor and General Manager of the Human Resources Department of Bangladesh Bank have to comply with the rule within four weeks.
Two rights organisation, Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and Naripokkho, filed the writ petition with the High Court on December 5 this year annexing some news cutting published over the discriminated circular.
Bangladesh Bank published the circular on December 1 this year including the clause requiring married women applicants to provide their husband’s residential address as their permanent address in their applications.
In the rule, the court also wanted to know as to why the respondents should not be directed to take immediate effective initiatives to ensure that a policy to address gender based discrimination is adopted within the Bank and provide training to all staff of the bank commencing with the senior human resources staff on their duties to ensure gender equality and provide remedies for gender based discrimination.
Advocate Aynun Nahar Siddika appeared in the court on behalf of the writ petitioner while Attorney General Mahbubey Alam stood for the state.
Advocate Aynun Nahar said, “The clause which included an eligibility criterion for all “married female candidates” to provide their husband’s residential address as their permanent address is illogical and contrary to the Article 28 and 29 of the Constitution.
