LAHORE, Dec 2: The appointment of eight additional judges for a period of one year suffers from constitutional infirmity because the constitution stipulates that no ad hoc or additional judge can be appointed against permanent vacancies.

Syed Zahid Husain Bokhari, a former judge of the Lahore High Court, told this correspondent on Thursday that the appointment of additional judges ran counter to a Supreme Court decision which laid principles of seniority of judges and their appointments to the Supreme Court and high courts.

Referring to the decision of 'Judges case', Justice Bokhari said the judgment which interpreted articles 177 and 193 of the constitution by a full bench of the apex court explicitly ordained that no ad hoc judges could be appointed to the Supreme Court while permanent vacancies existed.

As for the high courts, the judgment in the Al-Jihad Trust petition filed by Advocate Wahabul Khairi said: "Additional judges appointed to the high court against permanent vacancies or if permanent vacancies occur while they are acting as additional judges, acquire legitimate expectancy and they are entitled to be considered for permanent appointment upon expiry of their period of appointment as additional judges and they are entitled to be appointed as such if they are recommended by the chief justice of the high court and the Chief Justice of Pakistan in the absence of a strong valid reason to be recorded by the president/executive."

Justice Bokhari said 13 vacancies of permanent judges existed before the latest batch of eight judges was inducted into the superior judiciary. The appointment of additional judges for one year clearly contravened the apex court decision.

He said the appointment was also a legal anomaly because the vacancies existed for over a year and the Supreme Court had clearly laid down that they were to be filled by permanent judges in a period of not later than 30 days. The period was 90 days in case a vacancy was created upon the death of a judge.