ISLAMABAD The Supreme Court Bar Association and High Court Bar Association, Rawalpindi, on Tuesday filed two petitions separately in the Supreme Court challenging February 13 Presidential notifications regarding elevation of Justice Khawaja Sharif as Judge of the apex court and Justice Saqib Nisar as Acting Chief Justice of Lahore High Court. The petitions also sought that the apex court might seek the real reasons behind the violation of Article 177 of the Constitution from the Federation within a week time. The constitutional petitions, which were filed under order XXV of the Supreme Courts rules of 1980, read with Article 184 (3) of the Constitution, requested the court that it should issue order to the Government for the early appointment of judges on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. Muhammad Ahmad Zaidi on behalf of High Court Bar Association, Rawalpindi, and Mr Khattak on behalf of Supreme Court Bar Association (Advocates on the Record) filed the petitions here on Tuesday. All the record of recommendations received from the judicial consultants, dates, time and venue of meetings that were held by the high officials should be presented before the apex court, they further requested. The pleas also prayed that the minutes of those meetings, correspondence conducted among public officials on the matter of appointment of judges, notes exchanged between relevant officials and ministers on the issue of judges appointment should also summoned on the next hearing of the case. The pleas further requested that the court might observe the legality of action taken by the President violating Article 177 of the Constitution. They further mentioned the point that it was also reported that the President did not consult the Chief Justice of the apex court about the appointment of judges in superior judiciary. The pleas further argued that respondents failure to meet its constitutional duty under Article 177, 182 and 193 of the Constitution to make timely appointments of judges against vacancies in superior judiciary at the highest level envisaged by out of constitutional scheme. If the respondent (Federation) appears to have failed in meeting the standards that were required for appointment of judges, the court may know about a person who is responsible for this failure and to decide exactly how to deal with this person under law, the pleas concluded.