close
Sunday June 16, 2024

KPOGCL CEO appointment case: PHC directs KP govt to submit reply

By Amjad Safi
May 24, 2024
People are seen gathered outside the Peshawar High Court (PHC). — Geo News/File
People are seen gathered outside the Peshawar High Court (PHC). — Geo News/File

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Thursday directed the provincial government to submit reply in a petition filed against the initiation of process for appointment of chief executive officer of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Oil and Gas Company Limited (KPOGCL) and the current acting CEO within seven days.

A division bench of PHC comprising Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Wiqar Ahmad also observed that the case was of paramount importance and directed the KP advocate general to appear in person on next hearing slated for May 30.

Fida Gul and Mian Imran advocates appeared for the petitioner, Amjad Ali.The counsels informed the bench that the provincial government had established KPOGCL, which was being run under public sector companies Rules 2013.

They said that the government had advertised the post of CEO for KPOGCL in 2018 for which the petitioner had applied. They pleaded the petitioner was shortlisted and subsequently appeared to the search committee headed by chief secretary in 2019.

In 2021, the KPOGCL CEO Usman Ghani fell ill and later passed away and Nasir Khan was appointed as CEO on an acting charge basis on August 21, 2021.The counsels argued that an official can be appointed for only three months acting charge basis while the incumbent CEO had been occupying the post for the last three years.

The bench was told that the petitioner had again applied for the post of KPOGCL CEO advertised in March 2024, however, his applicant was rejected for lack of experience.They pleaded that the incumbent acting CEO was a candidate for the post of the chief executive officer and he was also a member of the selection committee, which was illegal.

The lawyers requested the court to declare the government action null and void as their client had been shortlisted and selected twice for interview and order halting the process for appointment.