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.
-
Record Set Straight On King Charles’ Reason For Financially Supporting Andrew And Not Harry -
Michael Douglas Breaks Silence On Jack Nicholson's Constant Teasing -
How Prince Edward Was ‘bullied’ By Brother Andrew Mountbatten Windsor -
'Kryptonite' Singer Brad Arnold Loses Battle With Cancer -
Gabourey Sidibe Gets Candid About Balancing Motherhood And Career -
Katherine Schwarzenegger Shares Sweet Detail From Early Romance Days With Chris Pratt -
Jennifer Hudson Gets Candid About Kelly Clarkson Calling It Day From Her Show -
Princess Diana, Sarah Ferguson Intense Rivalry Laid Bare -
Shamed Andrew Was With Jeffrey Epstein Night Of Virginia Giuffre Assault -
Shamed Andrew’s Finances Predicted As King ‘will Not Leave Him Alone’ -
Expert Reveals Sarah Ferguson’s Tendencies After Reckless Behavior Over Eugenie ‘comes Home To Roost’ -
Bad Bunny Faces Major Rumour About Personal Life Ahead Of Super Bowl Performance -
Sarah Ferguson’s Links To Jeffrey Epstein Get More Entangled As Expert Talks Of A Testimony Call -
France Opens Probe Against Former Minister Lang After Epstein File Dump -
Last Part Of Lil Jon Statement On Son's Death Melts Hearts, Police Suggest Mental Health Issues -
Leonardo DiCaprio's Girlfriend Vittoria Ceretti Given 'greatest Honor Of Her Life'