Two civil judges’ plea admitted for hearing

LAHORE

A single bench of the Lahore High Court on Thursday removed objection to petitions of two civil judges challenging administrative orders of the LHC about their suspension and admitted it for preliminary hearing. 

The LHC’s registrar office had put objection to the petitions that these were non-maintainable as a writ petition did not lie against LHC’s registrar. However, a judge took up the petitions as objection cases on Thursday and removed the objection and sent it to the LHC chief justice for fixing them before some appropriate bench. 

Petitioners Shehzad Aslam and Shahnawaz Khichi had filed these petitions. Appearing on behalf of Shehzad Aslam, Advocate Tipu Salman Makhdoom to support his petition said that in 2016, Supreme Court over-ruling judgments of the high courts barring writ petitions against judge’s orders, held in a case reported as PLD 2016 SC 961 titled “Ch Muhammad Akram Vs Registrar Islamabad High Court Etc” that an administrative order of a high court judge or judges can be challenged through a writ. This latest judgment of Supreme Court is the same judgment after which then Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman resigned as judge of Supreme Court of Pakistan on appointments made in Islamabad High Court during his tenure as chief justice of IHC, he said.

In his petition, he said his client was functioning as civil judge 1st class at Lahore and was suddenly made OSD on June 28, 2016, the day when Chief Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah took oath as CJ. 

He submitted that there never had been any complaint against him and all of his Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) of his 14-year service period were excellent. In only two PERs, for the period from March 15, 2011 to September 12, 2011 and September 13, 2011 to December 31, 2011, there were adverse remarks, which were expunged by Expunge Committee. 

He said on August 19, 2015, provincial judicial selection board recommended promotions of the civil judges but his promotion was deferred like some other judges. He said the committee was directed to submit its report within three weeks. 

The committee instead of submitting its report within three weeks, constituted another sub-committee consisting of five sitting and five retired district and sessions judges. Makhdoom said the sub-committee gave its recommendations about his client, categorising him as a corrupt judicial officer. He added his client along with others was terminated without being given an opportunity to defend their positions.

The counsel argued that the sub-committee that constitutes five serving and five retired DSJs could not provide recommendations for promotions of judges who never worked under them. He added that none of these serving or retired DSJs ever worked with his client, hence they could not make any recommendations about his performance. 

He said the LHC CJ held a meeting with his client and other OSD judges and ensured them that in order to confirm the report of the sub-committee, he would get their cases re-checked by various investigative agencies. However, nothing to that effect came out on record. 

He requested the court that all the proceedings and administrative orders passed against his client be declared illegal and unconstitutional.