Lawyer Information One other Grievance Earlier than SJC Towards LHC CJ Qasim Khan In A Reference Already Pending Earlier than It

Lawyer files another complaint before SJC against LHC CJ Qasim Khan in a reference already pending before it

The complainant has asked the Council to consider these objections as part of the main complaint of the signed, specific lawful measures against the illegal acts committed by the Lahore Administration / Supreme Court in the best interests of justice.

ISLAMABAD: (UrduPoint / UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News – Jan. 1, 2021) An attorney who previously approached the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) with a complaint against the Chief Justice of the Lahore Supreme Court, Mohammad Qasim Khan Another complaint filed on Saturday Finance Committee, which it said was made in violation of rules and regulations.

Mian Maqsood Ahmad, a Lahore-based attorney, has filed the plea, challenging the alleged illegal acts committed before the Lahore Supreme Court, which violates the terms of the appointment and terms of service of members of the Supreme Court from 1956, 1979, violates.

The attorney said that despite the matter of being subject with the Supreme Judicial Council over the appointment and state of service rules of members of the Supreme Court (1956, 1979), the LHC re-established a finance committee, also in flagrant violation of the above said rule violated.

The attorney also stated that the LHC plans to regulate all types of promotions, upgrades, and timed upgrades in violation of the SC’s 2016 ruling, SCMR 859. He also said that a golden principle had been established that revaluation could not take place if there was a public need to reorganize the department.

He argued that “on the orders of the Punjab governor” does not mean that it was approved by the governor. Rather, he said it was a constitutional requirement under Article 139 that all executive action by the Punjab government be done on behalf of the governor.

He said the Sharaf Faridi case could not override the constitutional provisions under Articles 115, 119-124, 208 (b). In addition, Article 175 of the Constitution does not deal with the terms of the two categories of workers mentioned above.

He said the question now is whether the person who occupies a position should be upgraded with a position that is being upgraded, or in some other way. Attention is drawn in this regard to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Petition No. 193 of 2013 on Civil Review in Constitutional Petition No. 71 of 2011 and published by S & GAD in its Circular No. Sor-III (p & GAD) 3-17 / 2013 from April 27, 2015.

He argued that the phrase improvement from the term “promotion” was limited to the position, and not to the person filling it. The upgrading could not be made to help a particular person promote them to a higher position or to give them the option of side appointment or transfer or posting to justify the upgrading. He said the government needs to determine that the department needs to be restructured, reformed, or served to serve the needs of the public interest service. Without these preconditions, an HP rating was not permitted.

The complainant argued that since a complaint was made, the decision against Mr Justice Muhammad Qasim Khan, Supreme Justice Lahore High Court Lahore, is pending before the Council, so the decision is prior to the meeting / convening of the Supreme Judicial Commission to consider the appointment of judges superior judiciary on January 8, 2021.

He prayed the council to consider these objections as part of the main complaint of the signed Concrete Lawful Act against the illegal acts committed by the Lahore Administration / Supreme Court in the best interests of justice.