PHC seeks comments on writ against appointments
PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday sought comments from chief secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and chief information commissioner Right to Information (RTI) Commission in a writ petition challenging appointments of 19 officials including secretary and commissioner RTI. A two-member bench comprising Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Muhammad Younas Thaheem
By our correspondents
August 26, 2015
PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday sought comments from chief secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and chief information commissioner Right to Information (RTI) Commission in a writ petition challenging appointments of 19 officials including secretary and commissioner RTI.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Muhammad Younas Thaheem also issued notice to the respondents officials, directing them to submit their replies in the petition before next hearing.
The court issued the notice in a writ petition of two citizens, including Peshawar-based journalist Azizur Rehman and Muhammad Naeem through their lawyer Shah Nawaz Khan.
The petitioners claimed that appointments of 19 officials, including Mushtaq Ahmad, a consultant/secretary, Abdul Mateen Khan, commissioner of RTI, and Owais Ibrahim Akram, IT Officer, were made illegally and against the service rules of the RTI Act.
The remaining 16 appointments were about drivers, Naib Qasid, dispatcher, sweepers and watchmen in the commission.
It was stated in the petition that the post of secretary had been created by the commission in December 2013. The notification for the post was issued in June 2, 2014. It said rather to make appointment to the post, the additional charge of secretary was given to Mushtaq Ahmad, who was a consultant with all privileges.
The petitioners pointed out that Mushtaq Ahmad was a retired deputy secretary was first inducted as consultant, flouting instructions and policy of re-employment of retired persons.
It said that another consultant Muhammad Jamil’s services were not extended after expiry of the contract. One year extension was granted to Mushtaq Ahmad with increase of his salary along with additional charge of the secretary, which was a sanctioned post.
About appointment of commissioner RTI, it said that the respondent Abdul Mateen Khan, was appointed on the commissioner post, for which he was not qualified within the meaning of section 24 (3) (a) of RTI Act 2013.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Muhammad Younas Thaheem also issued notice to the respondents officials, directing them to submit their replies in the petition before next hearing.
The court issued the notice in a writ petition of two citizens, including Peshawar-based journalist Azizur Rehman and Muhammad Naeem through their lawyer Shah Nawaz Khan.
The petitioners claimed that appointments of 19 officials, including Mushtaq Ahmad, a consultant/secretary, Abdul Mateen Khan, commissioner of RTI, and Owais Ibrahim Akram, IT Officer, were made illegally and against the service rules of the RTI Act.
The remaining 16 appointments were about drivers, Naib Qasid, dispatcher, sweepers and watchmen in the commission.
It was stated in the petition that the post of secretary had been created by the commission in December 2013. The notification for the post was issued in June 2, 2014. It said rather to make appointment to the post, the additional charge of secretary was given to Mushtaq Ahmad, who was a consultant with all privileges.
The petitioners pointed out that Mushtaq Ahmad was a retired deputy secretary was first inducted as consultant, flouting instructions and policy of re-employment of retired persons.
It said that another consultant Muhammad Jamil’s services were not extended after expiry of the contract. One year extension was granted to Mushtaq Ahmad with increase of his salary along with additional charge of the secretary, which was a sanctioned post.
About appointment of commissioner RTI, it said that the respondent Abdul Mateen Khan, was appointed on the commissioner post, for which he was not qualified within the meaning of section 24 (3) (a) of RTI Act 2013.
-
Celine Dion Reveals Music She's Listening To Lately -
HR Exec Kristin Cabot To Speak At Crisis PR Conference After Coldplay Incident -
Why Travis Kelce Says Taylor Swift Has Made Him 'so Much Better'? -
Halle Berry Credits This Hairstyle With Launching Her Acting Career -
Hailee Steinfeld Spills Her 'no-phone' Rule With Husband Josh Allen -
Bowen Yang Gets Honest About Post SNL Life: 'It’s An Adjustment' -
Charlize Theron Delivers Strong Message At 2026 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony -
Lil Jon Reacts To Son Nathan Smith's Death: 'Devastated' -
Bianca Censori Reveals Where She And Kanye West Stand On Having Children Together -
Taylor Swift Hypes Olympic Athletes In Surprise Video Message -
Timothy Busfield Charged With Four Counts Of Child Sexual Abuse -
Amy Schumer Explains Why Her Sudden Photo Surge Is ‘not A Cry For Help’ -
Kanye West First Contacted Bianca Censori While In Marriage To Kim Kardashian? -
Travis Kelce Reveals What His Nieces Really Do When He, Taylor Swift Visit -
Lola Young Makes Career Announcement After Stepping Back From Touring -
Priyanka Chopra Shares Heartfelt Message For Nick Jonas