Warrant of Precedence of 1975
Civil awards holders and holders of gallantry awards of Bir Uttam should be included in the Warrant of Precedence-
The Warrant of Precedence of the neighbouring countries include the holders of highest civil awards, however the impugned Warrant of Precedence of our country does not include such dignitaries, who are not constitutional or public functionaries. As such, it is expected that those dignitaries who have been honoured or decorated with civil awards, e.i., Shadhinata Padak, or Ekhushey Padak, and those valiant freedom fighters who have been honoured with gallantry awards of Bir Uttam should be included in the Table of the impugned Warrant of Precedence in such order as deemed appropriate. .....Bangladesh -VS- Md. Ataur Rahman, [4 LM (AD) 40]
Warrant of Precedence- The impugned Warrant of Precedence being based on utter irrationality and arbitrariness is to be modified and amended in the following manner-
1) As the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, all constitutional functionaries shall be placed first in order of priority in the Table of the impugned Warrant of Precedence.
2) Members of judicial service holding the posts of District Judges or equivalent posts of District Judges shall be placed at Serial No.16 in the Table along with the Secretaries to the Government and equivalent public servants in the service of the Republic.
3) Additional District Judges or holders of equivalent judicial posts shall be placed at the serial number 17 immediately after the District Judges...... Bangladesh =VS= Md. Ataur Rahman, [4 LM (AD) 40]
Warrant of Precedence being arbitrary, irrational, whimsical and capricious is subjectto judicial review- The High Court Division having considered the respective status and positions of different constitutional functionaries and the persons in service of the Republic rightly held that though impugned Warrant of Precedence is a policy decision of the Government yet "in the absence of evidence of any discernible guidelines, objective standards, criteria or yardsticks upon-which the impugned Warrant of Precedence is ought to be predicated, we feel constrained to hold that the said Warrant of Precedence cannot shrug off the disqualification of being arbitrary, irrational, whimsical and capricious and is, therefore, subject to judicial review under Article 102 of the Constitution." Bangladesh -VS- Md. Ataur Rahman, [4 LM (AD) 40]
Article 116A- Members of the judicial service are not holders of the constitutional posts but they being public servants are in the service of the Republic- Ends of justice would be best served if the District Judges and equivalent judicial officers are placed in the same table of the Warrant of Precedence along with the Secretaries and equivalent public servants. There is no denying that members of the judicial service (i.e., the subordinate judiciary) are not holders of the constitutional posts but they being public servants are in the service of the Republic and the nature of their service is totally different from the civil administrative executives. District Judges and holders of the equivalent judicial posts are the highest posts in the subordinate judiciary. In view of the provisions of the Article 116A of the Constitution all persons employed in the judicial service and all magistrates exercising judicial functions shall be independent in the exercise of their judicial functions, so it is immaterial to say that members of judicial service or the subordinate judiciary are above the senior administrative and defence executives...... Bangladesh -VS- Md. Ataur Rahman, [4 LM (AD) 40]
