PHC seeks comments on writ against appointments
PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday sought comments from chief secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and chief information commissioner Right to Information (RTI) Commission in a writ petition challenging appointments of 19 officials including secretary and commissioner RTI. A two-member bench comprising Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Muhammad Younas Thaheem
By our correspondents
August 26, 2015
PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday sought comments from chief secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and chief information commissioner Right to Information (RTI) Commission in a writ petition challenging appointments of 19 officials including secretary and commissioner RTI.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Muhammad Younas Thaheem also issued notice to the respondents officials, directing them to submit their replies in the petition before next hearing.
The court issued the notice in a writ petition of two citizens, including Peshawar-based journalist Azizur Rehman and Muhammad Naeem through their lawyer Shah Nawaz Khan.
The petitioners claimed that appointments of 19 officials, including Mushtaq Ahmad, a consultant/secretary, Abdul Mateen Khan, commissioner of RTI, and Owais Ibrahim Akram, IT Officer, were made illegally and against the service rules of the RTI Act.
The remaining 16 appointments were about drivers, Naib Qasid, dispatcher, sweepers and watchmen in the commission.
It was stated in the petition that the post of secretary had been created by the commission in December 2013. The notification for the post was issued in June 2, 2014. It said rather to make appointment to the post, the additional charge of secretary was given to Mushtaq Ahmad, who was a consultant with all privileges.
The petitioners pointed out that Mushtaq Ahmad was a retired deputy secretary was first inducted as consultant, flouting instructions and policy of re-employment of retired persons.
It said that another consultant Muhammad Jamil’s services were not extended after expiry of the contract. One year extension was granted to Mushtaq Ahmad with increase of his salary along with additional charge of the secretary, which was a sanctioned post.
About appointment of commissioner RTI, it said that the respondent Abdul Mateen Khan, was appointed on the commissioner post, for which he was not qualified within the meaning of section 24 (3) (a) of RTI Act 2013.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Muhammad Younas Thaheem also issued notice to the respondents officials, directing them to submit their replies in the petition before next hearing.
The court issued the notice in a writ petition of two citizens, including Peshawar-based journalist Azizur Rehman and Muhammad Naeem through their lawyer Shah Nawaz Khan.
The petitioners claimed that appointments of 19 officials, including Mushtaq Ahmad, a consultant/secretary, Abdul Mateen Khan, commissioner of RTI, and Owais Ibrahim Akram, IT Officer, were made illegally and against the service rules of the RTI Act.
The remaining 16 appointments were about drivers, Naib Qasid, dispatcher, sweepers and watchmen in the commission.
It was stated in the petition that the post of secretary had been created by the commission in December 2013. The notification for the post was issued in June 2, 2014. It said rather to make appointment to the post, the additional charge of secretary was given to Mushtaq Ahmad, who was a consultant with all privileges.
The petitioners pointed out that Mushtaq Ahmad was a retired deputy secretary was first inducted as consultant, flouting instructions and policy of re-employment of retired persons.
It said that another consultant Muhammad Jamil’s services were not extended after expiry of the contract. One year extension was granted to Mushtaq Ahmad with increase of his salary along with additional charge of the secretary, which was a sanctioned post.
About appointment of commissioner RTI, it said that the respondent Abdul Mateen Khan, was appointed on the commissioner post, for which he was not qualified within the meaning of section 24 (3) (a) of RTI Act 2013.
-
King Charles Prepares Next Move As Andrew Shows No Remorse -
Epstein's Brother Invited To Discuss Royal Family's Future After Andrew's Arrest, On Popular Show -
BAFTA Winner Robert Aramayo Defends Director's Racial Slurs Amid Tics -
Prince William, Kate Middleton’s Troubles Take On A New Face: ‘They’re Steeling Themselves’ -
'Coronation Street' Star Sally Ann Matthews Finally Reveals Why She Quit ITV Soap -
Prince Andrew's Major Sacrifice For Princess Beatrice, Eugenie Royal Titles Revealed -
ICE Agent Misfired Bullet Into Minnesota Hotel’s Guest Room -
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, Fergie Still Counting On Each Other? Deets -
Piers Morgan Reacts To Photo With Ghislaine Maxwell -
UK Data Privacy Regulators Raises Safety Concerns, Warn Against AI-generated Images -
Australian PM Agrees With King Charles, Backs Removing Andrew From Line Of Succession -
Kate Middleton, Prince William 'steeling Themselves' For Harry's Inevitable Arrival With Lilibet, Archie -
Kiefer Sutherland's Arrest Sparks Fresh Fears As Friends 'beg Him' To Get Help After Father's Death -
John Davidson 2026 BAFTA Backlash: Tourettes Action Charity Defends Him Over 'unintentional' Racial Slur -
Kim Kardashian Obsessed TV Star 'Lip King' Breathes His Last At 32 -
Prince Harry Backtracks On Privacy Fears For Princess Lilibet: Here’s Why Public Saw Her Face Amid Andrew Drama