Play store
Questions over the final stage of government primary school assistant-teacher recruitment have highlighted a fundamental issue in public administration: how can the state ensure that merit, fairness and lawful verification are applied consistently when deciding who receives a government job?
The issue came into focus after reports that 351 candidates recommended for appointment in 15 districts did not receive appointment orders issued on September 24.
According to a News report , the candidates said they had submitted the required documents but found their names missing from the appointment lists.
The development has understandably caused concern among affected candidates, particularly because a recommendation for appointment creates a legitimate expectation that any subsequent exclusion will be based on a clear and lawful ground.
At the same time, the reasons for individual candidates not receiving appointment orders have not yet been established publicly in every case.
Reports have pointed to possible verification findings, documentary discrepancies or other administrative issues. Such possibilities, however, should not be treated as established facts without examining the records of each candidate.
Police verification is not, by itself, an unusual feature of public-sector recruitment. In May, the Directorate of Primary Education (DPE) instructed district education authorities to conduct police verification of 14,384 candidates selected under the Primary Assistant Teacher Recruitment 2025 process.
The verification was also intended to examine the authenticity of candidates’ documents.
The government has also published the Government Primary School Teacher Recruitment Rules, 2025, providing the formal regulatory framework for the recruitment process.
The central question, therefore, should not simply be whether verification was conducted. It should be whether the verification was conducted according to the applicable rules, on the basis of relevant and verifiable information, and whether the same standards were applied to all candidates.
This distinction is important. A background check should establish facts relevant to eligibility or appointment. It should not become an informal mechanism for judging a candidate on political affiliation, family background, personal association or unsubstantiated allegations.
Supreme Court lawyer Manzur Al-Matin, commenting on separate disputes involving BCS recruitment, has argued that merit and competence should be the basis of public recruitment and that a candidate should not be deprived of employment merely because of relatives’ political identities. His comments concerned BCS cases rather than the current primary-teacher recruitment dispute, so their application here must be considered under the specific rules and facts of each case.
The present controversy also demonstrates why collective political claims should not substitute for case-by-case examination.
Student organisations have alleged political influence in the recruitment process and called for an impartial investigation. Those allegations remain allegations unless supported by evidence.
Conversely, an official verification finding should also not automatically be treated as conclusive if a candidate disputes its factual accuracy or legal relevance.
A credible review could therefore examine, for every disputed case:
• whether the candidate appeared on the final merit or recommendation list;
• the precise reason an appointment order was withheld;
• the legal provision relied upon for the decision;
• the evidence supporting any adverse verification finding;
• whether documentary discrepancies are genuine and material;
• whether the same criteria were applied consistently across districts; and
• whether candidates have an effective opportunity to challenge factual errors.
Such a process would protect both sides: it would preserve the state’s authority to reject candidates who genuinely fail to meet legal requirements while protecting qualified candidates from arbitrary or irrelevant exclusion.
Bangladesh’s courts have previously dealt with disputes over public recruitment and merit.
In July 2026, the Appellate Division ruled that the results of the 2023 primary assistant-teacher recruitment examination for candidates in Dhaka and Chattogram divisions should be published on a merit basis.
The case involved 46,199 candidates; the court also issued directions concerning 151 writ petitioners, subject to the terms of its judgment.
The ruling provides an important institutional context for the current debate: recruitment decisions must be capable of being reconciled with the governing rules and the principle of merit.
That does not mean every candidate who has been excluded is necessarily entitled to appointment. Nor does a recommendation automatically override a lawful disqualification. Rather, each exclusion should be demonstrably connected to a lawful, relevant and evidence-based ground.
Political neutrality is essential
Government employment is a public opportunity, not a political reward.
Political parties and organisations have every right to raise questions about recruitment policy and administrative transparency. But individual appointments should ultimately be determined by the applicable rules, qualifications, merit and legally relevant evidence—not by political endorsement or opposition.
Likewise, political identity by itself should not determine whether a qualified citizen can enter public service. Where there is evidence of a criminal offence, forged documents or another legally recognised ground for disqualification, however, the authorities should be able to act through the appropriate legal and administrative procedures.
The distinction is crucial: political neutrality does not mean abandoning verification; it means ensuring that verification serves the law rather than political preference.
For thousands of applicants, the primary-teacher recruitment process represents years of academic preparation, examination and personal investment. The final stage should therefore be handled with particular care.
The authorities can strengthen public confidence by clearly communicating the legal and administrative basis for any disputed exclusions, while protecting genuinely confidential information where necessary.
Candidates who believe factual errors have affected their cases should have access to a meaningful review mechanism.
The government also has an interest in maintaining effective verification. A merit-based recruitment system cannot function properly if legitimate legal or documentary concerns are ignored. But verification loses public credibility if its criteria are unclear, inconsistently applied or influenced by irrelevant considerations.
The principle is straightforward: merit should determine selection; verification should establish relevant facts; and any exclusion should rest on a clear legal and evidence-based foundation.
That approach would protect not only the affected candidates but also the integrity of Bangladesh’s public-service recruitment system—and, ultimately, public confidence in the fairness of the state.