ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) administration has pleaded before the Supreme Court that the petition challenging a number of appointments it made was aimed at stigmatising and scandalising the office of the chief justice of the high court.

The appointments were made in phases from 2011 to the end of 2012.

A statement by the IHC registrar submitted to the Supreme Court argued that in 2008 the then chief justice of the high court also made appointments in a similar fashion. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.

A three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk was hearing the petition moved by Advocate Arif Chaudhry on behalf of Advocate Chaudhry Mohammad Akram, a former vice-president of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association.

Claims petition in SC aimed at scandalising the office of CJ

The petition requested the apex court to take note of at least 74 appointments made in the IHC of which at least two were close relatives of sitting judges.

The petition was filed in Dec 2013.

The IHC statement explained that the objections in the “so-called” audit report were duly settled by a committee constituted by the high court chief justice and headed by the then senior puisne judge.

The Supreme Court had directed the high court to submit a detailed response to an internal audit of its accounts for 2011-13.

The reply also cited the 1994 Government of Sindh versus Sharaf Faridi case to explain that no audit of high court could be conducted by the Accountant General of Pakistan Revenue (AGPR) or any other authority.

In Aug 2014, an internal audit and inspection on the accounts of IHC 2011-13 by the AGPR noted that since its inception in January 2011 not a single person in the high court administration was appointed on merit.

Besides, all appointments, whether through fresh recruitment or on deputation, were made in violation of rules and merit, the internal audit explained.

The audit report also highlighted that deputationists in the high court were absorbed in much higher scales without any plausible justification when generally the absorption was made in the same scale or in some special cases maximum one stage above only.

In an earlier rejoinder of March 2014 to the petition, the high court administration had explained that the chief justice IHC opted to fill in 19 posts by relaxing the rules in terms of Rule 16 and 18 of the Islamabad High Court Establishment (Conditions of Service) Rules 2011.

“The total strength of the high court is 400 employees and 19 appointments made in relaxation of the rules is not a big figure to be highlighted by anyone,” the report maintained.

The fresh IHC statement contended that the petition was not only malicious but was also legally and factually baseless.

It stated that six deputationists were absorbed in the high court service under Rule 4(5)of IHC Establishment Rules 2011. Besides, 14 appointments are fresh and one on contract whereas one appointment on deputation was ordered by the chief justice under Rule 16 and 18.

It also alleged that the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court with mala fide intention to target particular individuals.

It said many employees appointed or promoted in relaxation of rules had been deliberately left out of the array of respondents in the petition.

Presently, 376 employees are working in IHC establishment and only about 61 employees have been targeted, the reply explained.

It said except for a few appointments, all others had been made after due advertisement and through a competitive process.

Published in Dawn February 15th , 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play