To the top court: Thirty judges to appeal special deputations

Civil magistrate submits petition after being deputed on special duty by LHC

LAHORE: Thirty judges of the lower judiciary have decided to approach the top court to challenge the Lahore High Court’s decision of deputing them on special duty, terming the court’s decision illegal.

Lahore High Court Chief Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah on June 28 – the day he took oath as CJ – made 30 judges, including three district and sessions judges (DSJ), six additional district sessions judges (ADSJ) and 21 civil judges, officers on special duty (OSDs).

A civil judge has filed a petition in the Supreme Court, while others who have reservations against their suspensions are also preparing to approach the apex court, The Express Tribune has learnt.

Shahzad Aslam, the petitioner, stated that he joined the judicial service in 2002 and continued till June 28, 2016 when he was made an OSD.

Aslam’s counsel, Tipu Salman Makhdoom, said his client was being victimised after the ruling and was termed ‘corrupt’ through media statements. “My client has a respectable reputation in the judiciary, there have never been any allegations of corruptions against him,” he argued.

He claimed this was the first time promotions in the judiciary were made by superseding seniors without any criteria.

On August 19, 2015, the Provincial Judicial Selection Board constituted a committee comprising five judges of the LHC to decide the promotion of the judges of the subordinate judiciary. The committee instead of submitting its report within three weeks, constituted another sub-committee consisting of five sitting and five retired district and sessions judges.

Makhdoom said the sub-committee gave its recommendations about his client, categorising him as a corrupt judicial officer. He added his client along with others was terminated without being given an opportunity to defend their positions.

He said there was no other forum other than the SC where his client could file an appeal.

The counsel argued that the sub-committee that constitutes five serving and five retired DSJs could not provide recommendations for promotions of judges who never worked under them.

He added that none of these serving or retired DSJs ever worked with his client, hence they could not make any recommendations about his performance.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 22^nd, 2016.