LAHORE, July 13: The Lahore High Court on Tuesday admitted for regular hearing a writ petition filed by five additional district and sessions' judges, who have demanded that the seniority list of civil judges be corrected.

AD&SJs Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry, Munsif Ali Minhas and Ahmad Nawaz Ranjha from Lahore, Sultan Ahmad from Mianwali and Chaudhry Abdur Razzaq from Mandi Bahauddin submitted that the Punjab Public Service Commission had committed serious irregularities in working out the civil judges' seniority list as notified on Aug 18, 1992.

Justice Syed Zahid Husain issued notices to Punjab government and the PPSC, as the contentions raised in the petition warranted a deep examination of the law. The PPSC, according to the petitioners, ignored the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules of 1962, which were amended in 1972.

They submitted that the commission violated the rules by placing some of those, who appeared in the written examination for appointment as civil judges in 1983 and passed only with grace marks, above on the seniority list.

The petitioners also held as respondents nine additional district and sessions' judges from different parts of the province, who were placed higher on the seniority list than them, along with the Punjab government and the PPSC.

Their counsel Barrister M Saleem Sehgal submitted that the petitioners had been running from pillar to post for 14 years before filing the petition. He submitted that they were appointed as civil judges and came to know about the irregularity in the seniority list in 1990.

They first made a representation to the S&GAD secretary, then the additional chief secretary and later the governor. They also submitted an appeal against the seniority list of July 1992. All the representations were rejected.

According to the counsel, the petitions approached the Punjab Service Tribunal that, on April 11, 2003, rejected their plea on the grounds that the tribunal could not interfere with the seniority list.

The counsel also submitted that the public service commission was empowered to give five grace mark as a concession to a candidate to pass the judicial examination, but it was not authorized to place such persons higher in seniority list than those passing the examination without grace marks.