PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Thursday issued notice to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government and KP Public Service Commission (PSC) chairman in a writ petition challenging the appointment of 120 civil judges in the province. A two-member bench comprising Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Roohul Amin Khan issued notice to respondents through Advocate General office of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The notice was issued to the provincial government through chief secretary, provincial secretary Law, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights, chairman of KP Public Service Commission and director examinations, KP Public Service Commission. However, Justice Yahya Afridi being a member of the administrative committee of the high court referred the petition to another bench of the high court for today. A Peshawar-based lawyer Waheedullah had challenged the appointments in the high court through his lawyer Aminur Rehman Yousafzai. It was mentioned in the petition that the high court after about seven years invited applications for 77 vacant positions of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate/Alaqa Qazi on October 3, 2013. The petition said that the petitioner being qualified applied for one out of the said posts. It said that the petitioner was astonished to know about another advertisement issued on October 22, 2015 of KP Public Service Commission, whereby applications for 120 vacant positions of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate/Alaqa Qazi, have been invited, but with different eligibility criteria. After the Supreme Court’s decision setting aside the PHC decision of appointments of the judges of sub-ordinate judiciary by the high court, the Public Service Commission again advertised the civil judges/judicial magistrate posts with certain conditions. The Public Service Commission set two years experience of the high court for the lawyers who wanted to apply for the posts. As per the first advertisement issued by the high court, the petitioner was declared eligible for the post, but he became ineligible in the fresh Public Service Commission advertisement as he had not completed his two years experience as high court lawyer. However, the petitioner claimed that the provincial government condition of two years experience as high court lawyer was in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court.
