Appointments of 73 IHC officials challenged in SC

* Petitioner claims due procedure not followed in these appointments
Appointments of 73 IHC officials challenged in SC

ISLAMABAD: A lawyer has challenged the appointments of 73 officials of the Islamabad High Court in the Supreme Court.
IHC’s former vice president Chaudhry Muhammad Akram has filed a petition through his counsel Arif Chaudhry under Article 184(3) of the constitution, making the high court’s registrar, deputy registrar Adrees Khan Kasi and 73 other officials as respondents. It is noteworthy that these 73 appointments were made after the re-establishment of IHC in 2010. Akram has requested the Supreme Court to declare the appointments as illegal and sought legal proceedings against all those involved in these appointments.
The petition states that in a general body meeting of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association, the illegal appointments were condemned unanimously and the bar association had demanded their review in accordance with the law and the rules. Former IHC bar association’s vice president contended that the high court’s registrar had acted in violation of his oath under Article 194 of the constitution.
He claimed that after the re-establishment of the Islamabad High Court in 2010, not a single officer/official has been appointed on merit and a number of appointments have been made in relaxation of rules, including absorption of officer and officials (deputationists) in much higher scales than they held in their parent departments. “Whereas, generally the absorption is made in the same scale or in some special case maximum one stage above only, but in Islamabad High Court the deputationists have been absorbed in much higher scales without any plausible justification. Absorption is also a kind of appointment,” he added.
The applicant said that the procedure of advertising the posts in newspapers for making the appointments through open competition after conducting test/interview had totally been ignored in all the appointments made during the audit period. He further stated that these appointments were creating a sense of deprivation in society and had caused serious doubts about the integrity of the appointing authority.
“It is also a well-settled principle that choosing of persons for public service is not just providing a job and the consequent livelihood to the one in need but is a sacred trust to be discharged by those charged with it, honestly, fairly in a just and transparent manner and in the best interest of public,” the petitioners has stated. 

comments powered by Disqus