that he had refused to obey the chairman’s “illegal” orders.
Chishti said since the BIEK chairman too had remained an official of top offices of the Sindh government, he had organised his transfer to his parent department in connivance with the chief minister’s secretary Iqbal Durrani. He said his transfer had been initiated under the garb of the Supreme Court’s judgment against deputations.
Chishti’s counsel argued that the petitioner was an employee of the BIEK and not a civil servant, hence, the Supreme Court’s judgment regarding deputation, absorption and out-of-turn promotions did not apply to him.
The court was requested to declare that being an employee of the education board, the petitioner’s transfer from Mirpurkhas to Karachi on deputation and his subsequent absorption, did not fall within the purview of the Supreme Court’s judgement.
The court was also requested to restrain the BIEK chairman and others from transferring the petitioner back to his parent board.
The Sindh High Court division bench headed by Justice Munib Akhtar issued notices to the chief secretary Mohammad Siddique Memon, BIEK chairman Akhtar Ghauri and chief minister’s secretary Iqbal Durrani to file their comments by October 13.
It also orders that the petitioner should not be transferred from Karachi without the court’s permission.
Detention of HuT activist
The preventive detention of Hizb-ut-Tahrir activist under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997 was challenged in the Sindh High Court by his spouse.
The petitioner, Noor-ul-Aain Farheen, submitted that her spouse, Mohammad Owais Raheel, an IBA graduate, was picked up by the personnel of law-enforcement agencies on September 12 from DHA Phase IV and since then his whereabouts had been unknown.
She claimed that when she had challenged the detention of her spouse, a police officer of the Gizri police station had informed the court that her spouse had been placed in preventive detention under Section 11-EEEE of the ATA on recommendation of the Counter Terrorism Department of the Sindh Police.
The petitioner submitted that the detention of her spouse under Section 11-EEEE was unlawful since neither a complaint had been filed nor any credible information or material was provided by the law-enforcement agencies to justify his detention.
She requested the court to strike down the detention order of her spouse and order his release. The division bench headed by Justice Irfan Saadat Khan directed the office to place the matter before the bench that was already hearing the identical petitions that challenged detention of persons under 11-EEEE of the ATA.