LAHORE - The Lahore High Court on Friday admitted for regular hearing a writ petition challenging alleged ‘out of turn’ appointments and promotions in the high court, with directions to the registrar office to come up with reply.

D.R.R (Civil) Akmal Khan had filed the petition and submitted that a number of employees of the high court had been holding seats, posts in the leverage of Rule 26 of the LHC Establishment Rules.

 He said that recently some officials were also promoted who had earlier been appointed under Rule 26.

Appointments under said the rule, he alleged, were out of turn and thus their promotions had the same status. He maintained that their appointments and promotions were violation of the SC judgments in which such appointments had been declared illegal and unlawful.

The petitioner said he had been serving the institutions for last 24 years but he was waiting for his promotion. He prayed that further appointments and promotions be stopped till final disposal of the petition.

After hearing arguments of the petitioner’s counsel, Justice Muhammad Anwarul Haq admitted the petition for regular hearing and sought reply from the registrar office. The court adjourned further hearing until May 30.

PETITION AGAINST POWER OUTAGES

A writ petition was filed in the Lahore High Court on Friday, seeking directions for government to end electricity load shedding.

Azhar Siddique advocate filed the petition and submitted that billions of rupees were being charged from the public in the name of Neelum-Jhelum surcharge but even then the massive outages had become their fate. He submitted that the government spent billions to establish new power projects but the electricity was not there.

The petitioner held that the government badly failed to fulfil its obligations.

The rulers, he alleged, created electricity crisis to prove it later as their election campaign.

In 2003, the high court ordered the government to end load shedding but the continuous load shedding is clear evidence that the government did not bother to comply with the court’s order which is contempt of court, he said. The petitioner requested the court to order the authorities to provide uninterrupted electricity to the public.