LAHORE, Aug 23: Punjab Advocate-General Khwaja Haris has placed evidence before the Lahore High Court to show that the appointments of the sacked prosecutors were made in deviation of rules and on the recommendations of several ministers in the last government.

Furnishing the required material, the AG requested court to dismiss the application against the process of appointment of prosecutors by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC).

The AG submitted a written reply in response to an application submitted by 11 out of 488 prosecutors the government sacked on July 25.

The prosecutors, through Muzamil Akhter Shabbir advocate, said they were removed from service because the new Punjab government wanted to appoint its’ favourites in their place.

He added the PPSC had started the process of appointing afresh prosecutors without giving the opportunity to the existing ones to apply for it. The lawyer asked the court to restrain the PPSC from making fresh appointments.

In its reply, the Punjab government denied the allegations and said the contents of the petition, including the grounds taken therein, were based on material concealment and misrepresentation of essential facts and on misconception of law.

It said as per the applicable terms and conditions, the appointment orders of the petitioners were made on temporary basis, and were subject to confirmation by the selection committee constituted in this regard in 2007. After interviewing more than 800 appointees, the committee declared the petitioners ineligible to hold the office of prosecutor.

The advocate general said the tenure of the prosecutors, as listed in their terms of appointment, was to start from the date of assuming charge of the post till recruitment under Contract Appointment Policy, 2004 or arrival of selectees from Punjab Public Service Commission. He added the previous government had formed the committee, which interviewed the petitioners and found them ineligible to continue.

The committee was formed after the Lahore High Court, while disposing of a petition on Dec 11, 2006, issued directions that “recruitment on contract be subject to review/confirmation by a selection committee, which should include one judge”.

The advocate general said it was evident from the record of the case that the appointment of the petitioners smacked of political considerations and had been made in deviation of the laid-down rules.