Constitutional offices: Acting governor enjoys full powers, says High Court

Court rejects PPP man’s plea that appointments of Punjab Services Tribunal men were illegal.

LAHORE: A full bench of the Lahore High Court has ruled that the acting governor enjoys the full authority of the governor and can make appointments to key posts on the advice of the chief minister.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, issued the ruling in a short order on Tuesday and dismissed a petition challenging the appointments of the Punjab Services Tribunal chairman and Punjab ombudsman by Punjab Assembly Speaker Rana Iqbal in his capacity as acting governor.

Aurangzaib Burki of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) had filed the petition through Advocate Fawad Chaudhry, contending that Iqbal had violated his mandate during his brief stint as acting governor by making unauthorised appointments. The governor, Salmaan Taseer, is also with the PPP.

The counsel said that the provincial government was constitutionally bound to consult the governor when making these appointments, but it had not done so. He argued that the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz-led Punjab government had deliberately violated the Constitution to get favourable appointments made through the acting governor.

Advocate Chaudhry said that the governor had been sent a summary for the appointments, but he kept them pending at the governor’s secretariat. But while the governor was away on a holiday, he said, the secretary of the Services and General Administration Department moved another summary for the appointments which the acting governor approved.

“The appointments were made in a slipshod manner and in undue haste, which prima facie shows malafide intent on the part of the respondents. The respondents neglected all norms of democratic governance and acted in a hasty manner beyond the Constitution,” Chaudhry argued. He submitted that the Supreme Court had already set a precedent about acting authorities in the Al-Jihad Trust case. During that trial, he said, it was agreed that the acting authority was meant to perform only the routine functions of the office, he said, and that it would be unfair for appointments to key posts to be allowed to a person in an office in an acting capacity.

He asked the court to consider the ambit, scope of powers and authority of the governor, as defined in Article 101 of the Constitution, and that of acting governor, as defined in Article 104 of the Constitution. He asked the court to declare the appointments unconstitutional, illegal and made in bad faith by the respondents. The court dismissed his plea.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 22^nd, 2010.