LAHORE, April 3: The Lahore High Court has directed the Punjab government to revise the number of law officers, set a criterion for their induction and make all appointments, including that of the advocate-general, after “prior consultation” with the LHC chief justice.

A division bench, comprising Justice Fazle Miran Chohan and Justice Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, issued the directive on a petition against the Punjab law secretary and 19 law officers.

The petitioner told the court that the appointments lacked merit and had been made in violation of rules and regulations.

The bench ordered: “The validity of appointments of respondents -- 19 law officers listed in the petition as law officers -- shall be examined within next 40 days.”

The bench decided: “The Punjab government will determine the posts of additional advocates-general, assistant advocates-general after consultation with the chief justice while keeping in view the number of judges of Supreme Court, high court and other courts and tribunals.”

The fact that the prosecution department had already been separately established should also be considered while determining the required number of law officers, the bench said.

But once the number was fixed, it would not be changed, the bench ordered.

Setting a criterion for the AG post, the court said that only a person qualified to be appointed as a high court judge would be made AG with prior consultation with the CJ.

Likewise, the posts of additional advocates-general and assistant advocates-general will also be filled with CJ’s consultation in addition to other qualifications provided in the Law Department Manual (1938).

The petitioner said the Punjab governor, by making an amendment to the Law Department Manual, had bound the government to consult the CJ before filling the seats of additional and assistant advocates-general. But the practice had not been followed in the appointment of the 19 law officers, he said.

The petitioner told the court that the number of law officers already working was enough to meet the cases because the LHC had only 35 judges.

He contended that the appointments would put unnecessary burden on the public exchequer.