Decision on petition: Illegal appointments case, ruling reserved

Chief justice says there could not be good governance if promotions not made on merit.

APP July 13, 2013
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. PHOTO: APP/FILE


The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its judgment over a petition filed against the illegal appointments in the bureaucracy.

The case was heard by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry and Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed on a petition filed by Orya Maqbool Jan.

During the proceedings, additional advocate general apprised the bench that another report by federation has been compiled in this regard which shall be submitted before the bench. The counsel for one of the respondents Fazlullah Pechuho maintained that his client was facing political victimisation as he was a relative of President Asif Ali Zardari.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry contented that apparently these transfers seem to be made illegally. The court had to decide that whether the transfers were according to law or not, he added. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed observed that court would not allow any illegality in promotions. Later, the bench reserved its judgment in the case.

Remarks by the bench

Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry has said that if promotions, deputations and transfers are not made on merit then there could not be good governance in the country and the dream of its prosperity and development could not be achieved.

The CJP remarked that the bureaucracy could not flourish without promoting merit.

He maintained that the previous government rewarded officers by giving them undue promotions which resulted in harming the basic structure of the government.

Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry remarked that the previous government created seats for 37 officers on March 11 while there was no such seat for them.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 13th, 2013.


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