PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Thursday issued notice to registrar of the high court in a writ petition that had challenged the condition of five attested Wakalatnamas per year of the decided cases of the last five years independently conducted by the candidate for the posts of additional district and sessions judges.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Roohul Amin Khan and Justice Younas Thaheem issued notice to the PHC registrar. He was asked to submit reply in the writ petition. The hearing was fixed for today (Friday).
The bench issued the notice in a writ petition filed by candidates (lawyers) from Abbottabad district including Muhammad Babar Shafi, Raja Muhammad Hasrat and Majid Irshad through their lawyers including Sardar Aman Khan and Tipu Muhammad Sultan.
The petitioners made the PHC registrar and chairman of the Provincial Judicial Selection Board respondents in the petition.
During hearing, the petitioners’ lawyer, Sardar Aman Khan, submitted before the bench that the Peshawar High Court in his reply to Supreme Court in a case titled Kiran Ayub Tanoli vs Peshawar High Court, has admitted that the condition of five Wakalatnamas per year for the candidates of additional district and sessions judge posts was the unanimous decision of the bench and bar, which was in violation of the KP Judicial Service Rules, 2001.
However, Justice Roohul Amin informed the lawyers that being a member of the administrative committee of the high court, he cannot hear the case. The court issued notice to registrar of the high court for reply. The case was adjourned till today, which is to be fixed before another bench.
Earlier, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi had also transferred the case to this bench with observation that being a chairman of the administrative committee he could not hear the case.
In the writ petition, it was stated that the petitioners were regular members of the District Bar Association Abbottabad.
It said the respondents advertised the posts of additional district and sessions judges (ADJs) on August 11, 2017 in which condition of five years Wakalatnamas was also added which was against the very essence and spirit of the KP Judicial Service Rules, 2001. It said that the condition is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
Furthermore, it was submitted that the petitioners was eligible by all means for the said posts having nine years of unblemished experience as practicing lawyers.
“Despite the fact that the basic requirement as per the advertisement for the length of eight years, and also that the requirement of wakalatnamas is not only contrary to the rules framed therein, but smells to accommodate the blue eyed as the basic requirement for the said posts would be the length of practice, age with condition to pass written test and interview,” the petitioners claimed in the petition.
It was submitted that in previous posts of ADJs in the year 2015, the condition of Wakalatnamas was challenged by Kiran Ayub Tanoli advocate and the Supreme Court had allowed her to sit in the exam at her own risk and cost and passed a clear order that “the questions as to how far could the condition of filing five power of attorney per year for a period of last five years be determinative of the status of a candidate as a practicing advocate and how far could such condition be held to be legal when it does not emanate from the rules, requires condition.”
The petitioners also produced various judgments of the Supreme Court in support of their stance in the petition.