Illegal appointments: Supreme Court seeks IHC registrar’s reply
Petition contends that 73 IHC staffers were appointed in violation of rules.
Petition contends that 73 IHC staffers were appointed in violation of rules. PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday sought a reply to a petition alleging a host of illegal appointments have been made in the IHC the court’s registrar in two weeks. The petition was filed by former Islamabad High Court Bar Association vice-president Chaudhry Muhammad Akram.
The petitioner’s counsel Arif Chaudhry maintained that 73 officials were appointed without merit in the IHC after its reestablishment in 2010. He requested the apex court to declare the appointments illegal.
On Thursday, when a two-member bench comprising Justice Nasirula Mulk and Justice Athar Saeed took up the matter, Attorney General Salman Aslam Butt argued that the petition was not maintainable as such a suit could not be filed against judges. However, the petitioner’s counsel maintained that the petition was not against any judge but rather the illegal appointments. The petitioner’s counsel argued that proper procedure was ignored while appointing the officers as no interviews were conducted.
“These appointments have caused serious doubts about the integrity of the appointing authority,” he argued.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 7th, 2014.
The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday sought a reply to a petition alleging a host of illegal appointments have been made in the IHC the court’s registrar in two weeks. The petition was filed by former Islamabad High Court Bar Association vice-president Chaudhry Muhammad Akram.
The petitioner’s counsel Arif Chaudhry maintained that 73 officials were appointed without merit in the IHC after its reestablishment in 2010. He requested the apex court to declare the appointments illegal.
On Thursday, when a two-member bench comprising Justice Nasirula Mulk and Justice Athar Saeed took up the matter, Attorney General Salman Aslam Butt argued that the petition was not maintainable as such a suit could not be filed against judges. However, the petitioner’s counsel maintained that the petition was not against any judge but rather the illegal appointments. The petitioner’s counsel argued that proper procedure was ignored while appointing the officers as no interviews were conducted.
“These appointments have caused serious doubts about the integrity of the appointing authority,” he argued.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 7th, 2014.