LAHORE: Justice Kazim Raza Shamsi of the Lahore High Court (LHC) Friday declined to hear identical petitions of 11 lower court judges challenging their suspension.
The court observed that the petitioners had challenged the decision of the LHC’s Administration Committee, and he was member of that committee; therefore, it was not appropriate for him to take up the matter.
The judge sent the petitions to the LHC chief justice for fixing their hearing before some other appropriate bench of the LHC.
11 judges, including 10 civil judges and an additional and sessions judge, had challenged the decision of the LHC to put them on suspension.
Counsels for petitioners submitted that the judges were smoothly performing their duties until June 28, 2016 when suddenly they were made officers on special duty (OSD), the day when incumbent LHC Chief Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah took oath. “Since then there was no complaint against the petitioners and all of their Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) are excellent,” the court heard.
“On August 19, 2015, the provincial judicial selection board recommended promotions of civil judges but the petitioners’ promotion was deferred,” the court was told. They said that a committee was formed to look into the petitioners’ cases and a report was sought within three weeks.
“However, the committee instead of submitting its report within three weeks, constituted another sub-committee consisting of five sitting and five retired district and sessions judges and the sub-committee gave its recommendations to hold their promotion and put them under suspension,” the court heard. Counsels for petitioners said that their clients were condemned without being given an opportunity to defend their positions.
They claimed that the sub-committee could not provide recommendations for promotions of judges, who never worked under them. They said that none of the serving or retired district and session judges ever worked with the petitioners and the sub-committee could not give any recommendations about their performance.
They said that that the CJ had held a meeting with the petitioners and other OSDs, and ensured them of re-verification of the sub-committee’s report personally but nothing had been done so far.
They requested the court that all the proceedings and administrative orders passed against their clients be declared illegal and unconstitutional.
