Court moved against registrar office

LAHORE :A Lahore High Court official on Thursday moved a contempt petition against registrar office for not complying with the court orders in which it was ordered to provide him attested copies of alleged ‘out of turn promotions and illegal appointments’ with the high court.
Akmal Khan, a senior court associate/supervisory officer, had moved the petition saying that on March 24, 2017, a single bench comprising Justice Muhammad Anwar-ul-Haq ordered the registrar office to provide him attested copies of all those persons who were given out of turn promotions and appointments in illegal way.
The petitioner said the Supreme Court through a judgment, which was reported as PLD 2016 SC 961 and civil review petition 474/16, had ruled that no illegal appointments, out of turn promotions and benefit of relaxation of rules would be tolerated in the judicial department.
He said that the judgment had held that administration committee of the high court have made appointment in complete disregard of the mandate given by the rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution. It held that ignoring meritorious candidates by exercising power under Rule 26 of the Lahore High Court rules will damage the image of the institution, the petitioner said.
He said such practice, as per the SC judgment, might lead to distrust of the public in judicial institution. Khan also said that every judge of the high court is the trustee of the institution and not above the law. He said the judiciary is the custodian of dispensation of justice in society.
For last several months, he said, he had been waiting for attesting copies but he was not provided these documents. He asked the court to order the respondent to provide him documents.
In his main petition, Akmal Khan had said that many employees of the court had been holding seats or posts in the leverage of Rule 26 of the LHC Establishment Rules. The petitioner also claimed that he had been waiting for his promotion for the last nine years.
The petitioner’s counsel alleged that unbridled use of discretionary powers under rule 26 had been witnessed during the tenure of previous chief justices of the high court. He asked the court to declare all out of turn appointments and promotions null and void.