Islamabad

Appointment of ATIR judicial members challenged in IHC

Court issues notices to PM, federal govt and others after hearing preliminary arguments

Our Correspondent June 25, 2021

ISLAMABAD:

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) issued notices on Thursday to the prime minister and others on a petition that challenged the appointment of 10 judicial members of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR).

Prime Minister Imran Khan, through a notification on June 2, 2021, appointed 10 judicial members of BS-21 to the ATIR. The petitioner, Mudassir Malik, a member of Hazara Bar Association, requested the IHC to declare these appointments as illegal, mala fide, unlawful, ultra vires, unconstitutional.

The petition, filed by Mudassir Malik, Member of Hazara Bar Association requested the IHC to declare the appointment of 10 judicial members in the ATIR as illegal, mala fide, unlawful, ultra vires, unconstitutional and null and void, having no legal effect in the eyes of law.

Waheed Shahzad Butt, one of the counsel of the petitioner, said that the prime minister of Pakistan, the law ministry, the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC), 10 newly-appointed judicial members as well as the federal government through Establishment Division had been made respondents. “The IHC has issued notice to all the respondents after hearing the preliminary arguments,” Butt said.

The petitioner has requested the IHC to cancel the June 2 notification because all such appointments had been made in flagrant violations of the rules and regulations applicable in such employments. Butt explained that the contractual appointments of judicial officers in BS-21 could not be made without advertisement and information to the public at large.

“Notification dated 02.06.2021 regarding appointment of ten persons to hold the Public office as Judicial Member (BS-21) may be cancelled and declared patently illegal because notification dated 02.06.2021 is in direct violation of Article 240 of the Constitution read with law governing Appointment on Contract Basis under Civil Establishment Code (Estacode) and intentional contempt of binding verdicts of Supreme Court in 1998 SCMR 2190 & 2013 SCMR 1140,” the petition stated.