Why the restriction of quota reform law?

The most sensitive issue of the quota reform movement was the Freedom Fighter Quota. The quota has been the most objection to discussions with the quota. The first reason for this objection is that the quota rate here is the most disproportionate. Fifty-three percent of the total population, including their children. or less than 1 percent, have been kep for them. Two This is the only corrupt one quota. There is no scope for anybody to have fake women or fake people, but there is a chance of being a fake freedom fighter. Three There is also a question about the constitutional basis. And giving quota to freedom fighters. During the formation of the Constitution of 1972. the Constituent Assembly debate found that the issue of giving freedom. the freedom fighters was discusse in relation to the issue of social security . quoting the job quota (Article 28/29).

recently announced that there will be no reform of freedom fighters quota. Because of this, he said a verdict of the High Court. Said that if the verdict is to be don in the freedom of the freedom fighters quota then the court will be humiliate.

This statement but came first in the press briefing. at the press briefing of the Ministry of Liberation. The 11-point press note  mentions two verdicts of High Court. saying that due to these verdicts the freedom fighters quota can not be reforme. But the interpretation of these rulings can be see. that these rulings are not about quota reform; Rather the quota implementation-related. it is not a matter of contempt for the courts to reform the quota.

2.
The two verdicts mentioned in the press briefing of the Ministry of Liberation War are. (a) The writ petition number 235 of the High Court in 201. (b) the Civil Court for the Leave of Appeal Number of the Appellate Division, 2062. There have been several other verdicts on the question of the advantages. and dignity of the freedom fighters. But in view of the discussion, we will discuss here only with the above two verdicts.

First of all, the quota reform in the High Court's writ petition number 235 in 2012 did not have any issue. even the court did not provide any observation on this. First thing about the issue. The issue in this case was to determine the age of retirement of freedom fighters in government jobs. Considering their contribution and sacrifice during independence, on February 3, 2010. the age of retirement of the freedom fighters in government jobs increased by two years to 59. with an official notification. After the public Servants Retirement Amendment Ordinance 2011. the retirement age of all government employees was increase from 57 to 59 years.

Petitioner Jamaluddin Shikder complained in this case that due to the fact. the retirement age of government officials was like to the freedom fighters. the benefit given to the freedom fighters in 2010 has become worthless. and through this they have been discriminate.

In the court, the government immediately ordered. the freedom fighters to increase the retirement age by one year. the court ordered it to be don at the earliest time. and ordered to apply it retroactive from 3 February 2010. (Note that this order has not yet been implemente).

The court also gave some more instructions and observations to the freedom fighters. One of these observations was that if the eligible freedom fighter is not available. then the quota of vacancies will be kep vacant. The translation of the observation is as follows:

"30 percent quota reserved for the children of freedom fighters will be  followed . And the concerned authorities will take all necessary. And all steps to fill them with the children of the freedom fighters. and if the quota is not met. then in the petition petition number 640 of 2010. according to this court order The relevant posts should be kep vacant. '

The government seeks the permission of the appeal. against some observations of the High Court verdict. In this, the Appellate Division (Civil Court for 2013 for Leave No. 2062) amended the above-mentioned observations with a few other things. if you do not have a suitable candidate in Muktijoddha Kota. then the vacant posts can be fille with meritorious students.

In any of these rulings, the quota was reforme or extended, reducing. abolishing - these were not subject matter of issue or observation. The court has instructed only how a government policy will be implemente .

3.
According to the principle of separation of power. the court can not make any law or government policy, can not amend it. The court can only explain any law or policy. if it is contrary to the constitution. can cancel or give guidelines for making laws or policies in the field.

Whether it is a freedom fighter or a woman or an indigenous person, for whom there is a quota in government jobs. it can not be a court-authorized subject. If the government abolishes a quota, the court may say that it is not constitutional. but if the government wants to reform the quota, the court can not say that it can not be don.

A petition was file in the High Court on January 31 this year, according to the provision of quota reform. There the court argued . it was the only jurisdiction of the quota reform government (Ittefaq, 5 March, 2016).

, according to the High Court verdict. there is no scope for the quota for the grandchildren of the freedom fighters. Because, using the word 'children' here. this facility is kep for the children of the freedom fighters only