PESHAWAR, Jan 18: The Peshawar High Court will rehear a writ petition challenging the appointment of four additional district and sessions judges by the PHC chief justice.

A two-member bench of the high court, presided over by Justice Abdur Rauf Lughmani, had reserved its judgment over the petition in November 2002. The judgment was not delivered in over an year and the court will rehear the petition.

On Jan 1, after the enactment of the 17th Constitution (Amendment) Act, Justice Lughmani ceased to be a judge as the three-year extension given to the superior courts' judges through the Legal Framework Order was withdrawn.

It is learnt that after his retirement Justice Lughmani returned the file to the high court. Now another PHC bench will hear the petition on Jan 20.

The petition was filed by Advocate Kaleem Arshad Khan, claiming that hehad topped the merit list prepared by the selection committee concerned, but former chief justice Sardar Mohammad Raza Khan dropped his name and appointed four other candidates.

The NWFP governor, the establishment and administration secretary, the PHC registrar and the four appointed judges, Tariq Yousafzai, Sardar Mohammad Irshad, Shaiber Khan and Mah Tallat, are respondents in the case.

The petitioner stated that he secured the first position in the writtentest and was called for interview through the Dera Ismail Khan district and sessions judge. He stated that he appeared before the selectioncommittee comprising three high court judges.

The petitioner claimed that he qualified the interview and was ranked at the top in the merit list. The governor, the petitioner stated, under Section 5 of the NWFP Civil Servants Act, 1973, was empowered to appoint additional district and sessions judges.

Through a notification on July 28, 2001, the governor delegated the powers to the chief justice. The PHC registrar, under the orders of the chief justice, issued a notification on Sept 21, 2001, appointing the four additional district and sessions judges.

The petitioner claimed that it appeared that he had been denied the appointment due to some extraneous considerations. He contended that the denial of the posting to him was violative of the principles of justice and the notification was issued without lawful authority.