Top court annuls 74 appointments in IHC

Three-judge bench, headed by Justice Amir Hani Muslim, announced the long awaited verdict on a three-year-old petition


Hasnaat Malik September 27, 2016
PHOTO: EXPRESS

ISLAMABAD: In a landmark judgment carrying implications for three existing members of the higher judiciary, the top court on Monday annulled 74 appointments in the Islamabad High Court (IHC), observing that the IHC’s then top judge and administration panel had disregarded their mandate in making these hirings.

A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Amir Hani Muslim, announced the long awaited verdict on a three-year-old petition of a lawyer, Chaudhry  Mohammad Akram, who challenged 74 appointments in the IHC, made in phases from 2010 to 2013.

Renowned lawyer Arif Chaudhry pleaded the case on behalf of the petitioner.

Justice Amir Hani Muslim, who is continuously streamlining the civil service structure of the country for last three years, has authored the 51-page judgment, which was reserved on May 16.

The judgment said the then IHC chief justice and the administration committee of two senior judges made appointments in the establishment in total disregard of the mandate given by the rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution.

The SC judge, Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman, was the IHC chief justice during that period and the administration committee then comprised the incumbent IHC Chief Justice Muhammad Anwar Kasi and the Federal Shariat Court’s incumbent Chief Justice Riaz Ahmad Khan.

The top court held that the chief justice had lost sight of the scheme of the rules by appointing respondents [ie, 74 employees] and others in the establishment of IHC.

It also noted that the provisions of rules that provide for a mandatory competitive test for the appointment of employees in the IHC Establishment were not followed, nor any advertisement was made to invite applications of eligible candidates.

“The justification that the IHC was a new establishment is not sufficient to override the mandatory requirement for the appointments. As a result, a number of meritorious and eligible candidates have been deprived of their fundamental right to seek employment through a competitive examination as provided under Article 18 of the Constitution,” it said.

The top court observed that if the competent authority itself started cherry picking by deliberately ignoring and overlooking merit-based candidates in appointment then the image of the institution would be tainted beyond repair. “Such practices may lead to public distrust in the country’s judicial institutions. We cannot allow denial of justice to those who merit appointment nor could we encourage anyone to bypass transparent process of recruitment provided under the Rules,” it said.

The court declared that the appointments of 74 employees and other such staff of IHC are to be de-notified and they shall be repatriated to their parent departments, including the private sector, within 15 days with the mode given by this court in landmark judgment 2013.

However, the bench held that on repatriation, these employees shall be allowed to join their parent departments and they will also be entitled to their seniority with their batch mates.

In order to examine cases of appointments of the employees other than respondents (74 employees), the top court has constituted a three-member committee, comprised of Senior Pusine Judge Justice Noorul Haq Qureshi and two senior most judges next to him.

They will examine the cases of all appointments made from 2011 onwards in violation of the rules and findings recorded by the SC in these proceedings, and order their de-notification accordingly.

The committee shall complete this exercise within a period of one month from the date of communication of this judgment and submit a detailed report to this court.

The court said, “Fresh recruitment in place of the de-notified employees shall be initiated simultaneously in accordance with the rules and preferably completed in 45 days.

Reactions

Commenting on the verdict, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Ali Zafar said this was a very serious case and it was likely that appropriate action would be taken against all those involved.

“In this case the judgment has not gone so far as to state that any investigation will be ordered and as such the matter of accountability is still left open,” he said.

Petitioner’s counsel Arif Chaudhry said the judges, who had been found guilty in the judgment, should be restrained from their judicial work.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 27th, 2016.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ