|
|
|
| June 16, 2005 | Thursday | Jumadi-ul-Awwal 8, 1426 |
Plea against appointment of Fazl’s brother admitted
PESHAWAR, June 15: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday admitted for full hearing a writ petition challenging the appointment of a brother of the leader of the opposition Maulana Fazlur Rehman as project director in the Commissionerate of Afghan Refugees (CAR). A two-member bench comprising Justice Qaim Jan Khan and Justice Ejaz Afzal ordered that the writ petition should be fixed for final hearing within a fortnight.
The bench also issued notices to the respondents including the Ministry of State and Frontier and Region and the provincial government.
The petition has been filed by Major (Retd) Fayyaz Durrani, who was replaced as project director (Repatriation), CAR, by Mr Ziaur Rehman, brother of Maulana Fazlur Rehman. The petitioner has stated that the appointment of Mr Zia was politically motivated.
The ministry of Safron has already conceded in its comments that the appointment of Mr Zia was against the prescribed rules and regulations. The ministry admitted that it had not given any approval for replacement of the petitioner.
The petitioner has challenged the March 28 order issued by the NWFP chief secretary whereby Mr Zia was appointed as project director (Repatriation), a lucrative post in the commissionerate.
Advocate Waqar Ahmad Seth appeared for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner was serving against a post funded by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and he could not be replaced with the order of the chief secretary. He stated that the respondent (Mr Zia) had been serving as assistant engineer in the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) and was attached with the NWFP government on deputation.
Mr Seth contended that a depotationist could not be appointed against the post of project director (Repatriation).
The petitioner stated that the said post could not be filled without the assent of the Ministry of Safron and a special committee had to be constituted for that purpose.
He stated that no order was issued regarding the petitioner (Mr Durrani) whether he was removed or transferred or adjusted on any other seat. The petitioner questioned that how could Mr Zia be posted against a seat which had not fallen vacant.—Bureau Report
|
|
|
|
