RAWALPINDI, Aug 30: The Lahore High Court has declared the appointment of Chaudhry Zaka Ashraf as president of the Zarai Taraqqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL) as unlawful and set aside the 2008 notification of his appointment.

In his August 27 judgment announced on Monday, Justice Asad Munir of the Rawalpindi bench of LHC said the appointment had been made unlawfully and could not be sustained because Mr Ashraf had been unable to cite the authority of law under which he held the post.

“The appointment made through the notification dated August 30, 2008, issued by the finance division and confirmed by the board of governors of ZTBL was without lawful authority and of no legal effect,” the verdict said.

The LHC had on May 28 reserved the verdict on a quo warranto petition filed by Muhammad Iqbal Khattak, a former general-secretary of the ZTBL Workers Association, through his lawyer Qazi Ahmed Naeem.

Secretaries of finance, cabinet division and establishment division, SBP governor and chairman and president of ZTBL were respondents.

The verdict upheld the petitioner's claim that Mr Ashraf had no qualification and experience relevant to the banking field and was appointed without getting a clearance from the State Bank in accordance with its 'fit and proper test criteria'.

The court said in the 20-page judgment that the argument of Zaka Ashraf that ZTBL was not a banking company and his appointment did not require a clearance from the SBP did not hold waters because under banking companies laws, the ZTBL was a bank regulated by the SBP.

Regarding the argument that the ZTBL had no banking licence from the SBP and the relevant rules could not apply to it, the court said the bank was established in 2002 after its conversion from the Agriculture Development Bank and the transitional period laws had allowed the ZTBL to be governed by ADB rules. As the ZTBL had applied for a licence from the SBP and was in banking business, it would be governed by the SBP laws, the verdict said.

About Mr Ashraf's argument that he did not hold a public office and the writ petition could not be heard against him, the court noted that in every respect he held a public office because he was getting his salary from the public money and dealing with activities of public interest.