SC reprimands SHC over paralegal staff hiring

SC constitutes committee to examine all appointments, submit report by January 15

ISLAMABAD:

 

The Supreme Court has held that the Sindh High Court (SHC) has “failed to perform its duty under Article 203 of the Constitution to supervise the courts subordinate to it, especially in monitoring the appointment process of paralegal staff”.

“The plea of consistency with past practice is of no advantage because irregularities in the appointment process cannot be justified by invoking the neglect by previous administrations. It does not behove a High Court to take refuge behind precedents of deviating from the law to explain irregularities in the present appointment process," a five-page written order issued by the special bench led by Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel said while hearing a constitutional petition filed by Ghulam Sarwar Qureshi.

The petitioner requested the apex court to declare the appointment of judges and other staff in the SHC as well as civil and additional district judges in the subordinate judiciary from 2017 till date as “illegal, mala fide, unlawful, ultra vires, unconstitutional and null and void, having no legal effect”. The bench has appreciated the assurance by the SHC registrar to make the appointment process fair, just and transparent in the future.

The court has also constituted a committee to examine all appointments and submit a report by January 15, 2022. "Be that as it may, before we arrive at any final decision, we consider it appropriate to form a Committee comprising Additional Registrar (Admin) of the Supreme Court, a Deputy Registrar to be nominated by the Sindh High Court and Assistant Registrar (Civil-II) of the Supreme Court to examine in detail the present (and other requisite) material summoned by the Committee from the Registrar.

"The Committee shall prepare a report of its findings on the fairness and transparency of the appointment process of staff in the District Judiciary and the types and extent of the departure from the requirements of the applicable rules including the SJSSR," the order said.

READ SC gives Murtaza Wahab another chance, withdraws removal order

"Two aspects that have drawn our attention today shall also be examined and reported by the Committee. “The number and domicile of successful candidates who were granted age or domicile relaxation or both; and the number and the posts of successful candidates who were granted relaxations and exemptions from different prescribed requirements and stages of the selection process. The committee shall file its report in court by 15.01.2022.”

The court in its order said that when the registrar was confronted with this information, he acknowledged that the lapses were committed on part of the relevant authorities involved in employing candidates but no action was taken by the SHC because no complaint had ever been received in this regard. He, along with Munir A Malik advocate also stated that the procedure adopted by the district and sessions judges of forwarding unreasoned requests to the SHC chief justice for seeking age and domicile relaxations from the period 2017 and onwards was consistent with the past practice of the high court.

The order said that SHC registrar in its report stated that the age and domicile relaxations in many cases were requested by the concerned district and sessions judges without citing any reasons justifying the same.
"This happened for the posts of Stenographer, Computer Operator and Junior Clerk, amongst others, in several Districts. The practice of not giving reasons for seeking relaxation of either age or domicile is a direct violation of Rule 14 of the Sindh Judicial Staff Service Rules, 1992.”  The court also noted that the SHC registrar in its report submitted 'District-Wise Details of Appointments in the District Judiciary of Sindh for the Period from 2017 to Date’ has been furnished.

"This data confirms that the process of appointing staff to the District Judiciary was replete with irregularities." The court noting anomalies said that for certain posts, namely, Junior Clerk (BPS-11); Bailiff (BPS-05); and CCTV Operator (BPS-05), there was neither any entry test conducted nor any marking scheme prepared for the interview stage.

"On the posts of Hardware & Networking Technician (BPS-14), Computer Operator (BPS-12) and Junior Clerk (BPS-11), candidates who had not obtained the threshold pass marks were appointed.
"For certain senior posts, namely, Stenographer (BPS-16); Computer Operator (BPS-12); and Junior Clerk (BPS-11), no marking scheme in the interviews was used to assess the performance of the candidates.

"For some posts, namely, Stenographer (BPS-16); Junior Clerk (BPS-11); and Bailiff (BPS-05), the marking scheme of interviews was dispensed with; and Vacancies for almost all posts in the District Karachi East were not advertised," the order said.