0
KARACHI, Feb 1: Appointment or ‘offer’ letters have been issued to all 91 lecturers selected by the Sindh Public Service Commission in 2006, Advocate-General Dr Mohammad Farogh Naseem informed a division bench of the Sindh High Court on Friday.
Disposing of the petitions in terms of the AG’s statement, Justices Aziz M. Memon and Arshad Noor Khan, who constituted the bench, told the petitioners to obtain their appointment letters from the education department.
The AG said the letters would be sent by mail if they were not received by hand.The AG said though only 49 of the 91 appointees had approached the court, provincial governor Dr Ishratul Ebad Khan has ordered that all lecturers selected by the SPSC should be issued appointment letters. He said he had addressed an opinion to the governor, which was accepted and acted upon.
Forty-nine of the 91 appointees had approached the court in 2007. A division bench directed the government on in September 2007 to settle the matter within a month, failing which the petitioners would be deemed to have been appointed. There was no compliance and the petitions again came up for hearing in December 2007.
The court gave another 15 days and when no compliance was reported the court gave the new AG one last opportunity till Jan 25. The AG said he had sent his opinion to the authorities concerned a response was likely soon. He has advised the authorities to implement the court order.
The AG submitted on Friday that not only his advice has been accepted but the appointment letters have also been issued.
NAB arrests
The Sindh High Court asked the National Accountability Bureau on Friday to explain on February 6 the circumstances under which two bail applicants involved in a reference were picked up from its premises. Mohammad Ishaq Lashari and Sultan Ahmed Lashari, schoolteachers of Shikarpur, are wanted by the NAB in a multi-million-rupee embezzlement of provident fund in the education department. The reference is being tried by an accountability court. They are alleged to have received about Rs1.8 million in their different accounts. Apprehending arrest, they moved the high court for pre-arrest bail.
As the petitions came up for hearing before a division bench comprising Justices Mrs Qaiser Iqbal and Mahmood Alam Rizvi, their counsel, Noor Naz Agha, submitted that they were arrested while approaching the court-room. She said their names had subsequently been added to the list of the accused and that there was no case against them as the amounts were received by other people in their name.
Seeking an explanation from the bureau, the bench asked the NAB counsel to produce the memo of arrest.
Notice for alleged contempt
Another division bench comprising Justices Munib Ahmed Khan and Syed Pir Ali Shah issued notices in a contempt application moved by 23 people affected by the Lyari Expressway. They submitted through Advocate Qadir Bakhsh Jatoi that the respondent city district government and the expressway project were barred from demolition of their houses without payment of compensation. However, they have demolished their houses without paying any compensation.
The bench issued notices to four persons, including the expressway project director and the CDG counsel who was told to convey the order to the authorities concerned.
Order reserved
Another bench consisting of Justices Azizullah M. Memon and Arshad Noor Khan reserved its order in a petition moved by a PIA employee against proceedings initiated against him under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
Mohammad Ilyas, accounts officer, precisions engineering services, PIA, submitted through Advocate Gohar Iqbal that the airline management had commenced proceedings against him for allegedly submitting a fake education certificate when he was serving as an assistant at its Muscat (Oman) office. The counsel argued that the PIA service and disciplinary rules had not been published in the official gazette and the rules were not statutory.
Under a 2006 Supreme Court judgment, employees not governed by statutory rules could not be proceeded against the Removal from Service Ordinance and the proceedings instituted by the management were illegal.
