13 March 2004	Saturday	21 Muharram 1425

PESHAWAR, March 12: A two-member bench of the Peshawar High Court has reserved judgment in two identical writ petitions challenging the appointment of four additional district and sessions judges by the chief justice.

The petitions have been filed by advocates Kaleem Arshad Khan and Mohammad Saeed who claim they top the merit list prepared by the selection committee, but the then chief justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan in September 2001 dropped their names and appointed four other candidates as ADSJ.

The bench comprising Justice Shahjehan Khan and Justice Qazi Ahsanullah Qureshi heard the other day arguments of the petitioners' counsel Syed Hamid Ali Shah and Shakeel Ahmad, and the respondents' lawyer M. Sardar Khan.

Hamid Ali Shah produced certified copies of a Karachi court orders, contending that one of the four appointed judges was a proclaimed offender. He said the said judge was required in a case registered against him there, but he did not appear before the court.

He argued that the appointed judge had deceived the high court by submitting a forged order to it.

The counsel argued that merit was violated in these appointments as Mr Arshad Khan had topped the merit list whereas Mr Saeed was declared second in the written examination.

He said Mr Arshad Khan was left behind on the pretext that the reports submitted by the special branch police about him were not favourable.

He pointed out that Mr Arshad Khan had previously served as a civil judge on the contract basis and there was no complaint against him at that time.

The counsel asked how a candidate could be rejected on the basis of some flimsy reports of special branch.

He said if they had to rely on the reports of special branch then the judges' ACRs should be prepared by the special branch police and not by the concerned district and sessions judges.

Sardar Khan contended that these petitions were not maintainable as, he argued, an act of the chief justice could not be challenged through a writ petition. He said the petitioners did not top the merit list.

In November 2002, a two-member bench headed by Justice Abdur Rauf Lughmani had heard these petitions and reserved the judgment. Later, it was decided to re-hear the petitions.

Mr Lughmani, who retired with the passage of the 17th Amendment, returned these files on his retirement in January.