IHC registrar wants court to review order in 'failed' judges' case
Justice Kayani issues notice to judges, Islamabad Bar Association
PHOTO: REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has issued notices to 18 judges of Islamabad district judiciary who had failed departmental examinations which tested their knowledge of criminal, civil and Shariah laws among other subjects.
IHC’s Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani issued pre-admission notices to the judges and the Islamabad Bar Association after the registrar of the high court, through the Advocate General of Islamabad, filed an application requesting the bench to review its findings in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the judgment it passed on June 6.
Judges challenge IHC judgment in Supreme Court
The judges had challenged the mandatory examinations for their confirmation and secured restraining orders from the IHC. The judges had failed in Criminal Law, Civil Law-I, Civil Law-II, Revenue Law, Accounts and Shariah Law subjects.
However, Justice Kayani dismissed their petitions stating “if the petitioners are allowed to get through with such a situation without departmental examination, it means this court further perpetuates the illegality which is against the mandate of law”.
Despite dismissing the petitions after finding them devoid of merits and unmaintainable, Justice Kayani had concluded that the judges “shall continue to work” and be given a one-time extension of their probation period.
Noting that the court had concluded that the petitions were not maintainable, AG Mian Abdul Rauf contended that the registrar should not have been directed to seek orders from the IHC chief justice and the administration committee ought not to have been issued.
Money trail of LHC chief justice: IHC reserves verdict on petition’s maintainability
The observations, he stated, were “tantamount to mandate certain acts which otherwise fall within the domain and discretion” of the IHC chief justice and the administration committee. He added that the recommendations were not in line with the law and the reasons provided in the judgment.
Rauf further contended that the findings were not supported by law and hence tantamount to an error of law, requiring a review.
He urged the court to review the paragraphs and leave it to the IHC chief justice and the administration committee to decide the issue in accordance with the law.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 23rd, 2017.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has issued notices to 18 judges of Islamabad district judiciary who had failed departmental examinations which tested their knowledge of criminal, civil and Shariah laws among other subjects.
IHC’s Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani issued pre-admission notices to the judges and the Islamabad Bar Association after the registrar of the high court, through the Advocate General of Islamabad, filed an application requesting the bench to review its findings in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the judgment it passed on June 6.
Judges challenge IHC judgment in Supreme Court
The judges had challenged the mandatory examinations for their confirmation and secured restraining orders from the IHC. The judges had failed in Criminal Law, Civil Law-I, Civil Law-II, Revenue Law, Accounts and Shariah Law subjects.
However, Justice Kayani dismissed their petitions stating “if the petitioners are allowed to get through with such a situation without departmental examination, it means this court further perpetuates the illegality which is against the mandate of law”.
Despite dismissing the petitions after finding them devoid of merits and unmaintainable, Justice Kayani had concluded that the judges “shall continue to work” and be given a one-time extension of their probation period.
Noting that the court had concluded that the petitions were not maintainable, AG Mian Abdul Rauf contended that the registrar should not have been directed to seek orders from the IHC chief justice and the administration committee ought not to have been issued.
Money trail of LHC chief justice: IHC reserves verdict on petition’s maintainability
The observations, he stated, were “tantamount to mandate certain acts which otherwise fall within the domain and discretion” of the IHC chief justice and the administration committee. He added that the recommendations were not in line with the law and the reasons provided in the judgment.
Rauf further contended that the findings were not supported by law and hence tantamount to an error of law, requiring a review.
He urged the court to review the paragraphs and leave it to the IHC chief justice and the administration committee to decide the issue in accordance with the law.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 23rd, 2017.