PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court Abbottabad bench has directed the provincial government to respond within a fortnight to a petition against the alleged violation of seniority formula during key postings in the directorate of prosecution.

A bench consisting of Justice Wiqar Ahmad and Justice Kamran Hayat Miankhel issued the order after preliminary hearing into the petition filed by Abbottabad’s social activist Qari Rashid Mehmood, who challenged the year 2022’s several notifications for prosecutor postings and transfers.

It directed the chief secretary, home secretary and special home secretary-Ito file comments about the petition.

The petitioner requested the court to declare those notifications illegal and set them aside.

He also sought the court’s orders for the home secretary and director-general (prosecution) to act in accordance with the law on the matter of postings, transfers and promotions by keeping in view the seniority lists prepared and notified for the offices of specific grades.

High court asks govt to reply to petition

The petitioner also prayed the court to provide him with an interim relief by suspending action on those notifications to the extent of 27 officers, who, he claimed, were junior to several officers but were appointed to important positions.

However, the bench denied him that relief observing that the petitioner had brought a pro bono petition and there was no justification for the grant of that relief.

It added that the grant of interim relief would amount to the grant of final relief as both were similar in nature.

The respondents in the petition are the provincial chief secretary, home secretary, special secretary home-I, director-general (prosecution), and 27 of the officers, whose postings have been challenged.

Senior advocate Sardar Nasir Aslam Khan appeared for the petitioner and contended that his client had assailed the postings, transfers and appointments on higher grades without consideration of ‘merit’ and had questioned the impugned postings and transfers on a makeshift basis.

He contended that the perusal of the seniority list by juxtaposing it to the postings, transfers and makeshift promotions orders showed that postings of 27 officers in question were illegal and a departure from the ‘merit’.

The counsel said that those officers had been assigned postings in BPS-19 and BPS-20, being junior to a number of senior incumbents in BPS-19, who were qualified to be appointed as regional director prosecution, director monitoring, director legal, deputy and assistant directors, and district public prosecutors in terms of their seniority.

He said that the post of a regional director according to rules had to be filled by promotion from among the senior most district public prosecutors on qualifying senior management course, or in case of attaining age of 58 years, the public prosecutor on top of the seniority list could also be promoted as regional director for the last two years of his service.

Mr Khan said that it had come to the notice of the petitioner that majority of the senior prosecutors in BPS-19, who deserved to be appointed against important posts, upon visibly perpetual loss of future prospects of service had been adversely affected mentally and were extremely disturbed by the ‘unlawful policy of pick and choose’.

Published in Dawn, November 13th, 2022