ISLAMABAD: Two petitions filed with the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against the appointment of sessions courts judges are likely to be further delayed as the judicial officers have sought the constitution of a larger bench to decide their cases.

The two petitions were filed by the Islamabad district and Islamabad High Court (IHC) bar associations in February 2012, pleading that those lower court judges who had been appointed in excess of the quota reserved for their provinces in 2011 should be sent back.

On November 7, 2012, Justice Shaukat Ali Siddiqui issued a short order that all the judges who had been appointed to the lower judiciary in Islamabad in violation of the standard quota be sent back to their parent judicial services.

When Justice Siddiqui was about to take up the petitions again a couple of weeks back, some of the sessions courts judges filed an application for the formation of a larger bench.

Under the Islamabad Judicial Services Rules 2011, the IHC administration was bound to appoint the judges on the basis of a quota: 12 per cent from each of the four provinces, two per cent from Fata and 50 per cent from the Islamabad district. The petitions claimed that the IHC administration had violated the quota and overlooked the Islamabad capital territory (ICT).

Before issuing the detailed judgment, Justice Siddiqui temporarily ceased his office till the issuance of a notification for confirmation of his services. He resumed his work in January 2013.

In his absence, the IHC administration withdrew the file of the judges’ appointment case.

The matter was not fixed before Justice Siddiqui till last year when a lawyer filed an application seeking the issuance of a detailed order.

In February this year, some senior lawyers of the district bar and Islamabad High Court (IHC) bar associations filed two separate petitions seeking the withdrawal of the petitions against the appointment of the judges.

They also submitted a statement which later turned out to be bogus. Justice Siddiqui issued contempt notices to the lawyers but later quashed the proceedings after the lawyers submitted an unconditional apology for misleading the court.

When contacted, Syed Nayyab Hassan Gardezi, former president of the IHC bar association who filed one of the petitions, said the sessions court judges appointed in an alleged flawed manner could not challenge the authority of the single bench.

“The application seeking a larger bench is aimed at further delaying the two-year-old pending petition,” he said.

“If they are expecting any adverse decision from Justice Siddiqui, the affected judges can file an intra-court appeal against his order. This is not the proper way of demanding a larger bench when the single bench has issued a short order,” he added.