Qalandari1
Banned
ISLAMABAD, Aug 22: Not one of the appointments made in the administration of the Islamabad High Court since its inception in January 2011 was made on merit, according to an official internal audit of the accounts of the court.
All the appointments, whether through fresh recruitment or on deputation, violated rules and merit criteria, the Accountant General of Pakistan Revenue (AGPR) office reported after conducting the internal audit.
Dawn has a copy of the report. It says that during the scrutiny of the personnel files, the auditors “observed that not a single appointment has been made on merit, and that a number of appointments have been made in relaxation of rules, including absorption of officers and officials (deputationists) in much higher scales than they were holding in their parent departments.”
“Generally the absorption is made in the same scale, or in some special case maximum one stage above only,” notes the report.
“But in the Islamabad High Court deputationists have been absorbed in much higher scale, without any plausible justification.”
Also the procedure of advertising the vacancies, and filling it through open competition after conducting test/interviews, was “totally ignored in all the appointments,” adds the report.
Rule 8 of the Islamabad High Court (appointments and conditions of service) Rules 2011 specifically mentions that initial recruitment to all posts shall be made after advertising the vacancies in the newspapers, and be based on test and interviews.
“It is more alarming that even after advertising the posts of non-gazetted cadres, they were still filled by relaxing the rules and the applicants who had applied against the said posts were deprived of their fundamental right to compete for getting the job on merit,” says the report.
It particularly notes that “no justification or exigency existed as already a reasonable number of employees (more than 200) had been working in the court and there was no hurdle in adopting proper procedure to fill up the vacant posts.
“But it appears that the intention was not there and nepotism/favoritism was allowed to prevail. Even in case of any exigency, the post could have been filled temporarily (not more than for a period of six months) and then regular appointment could have been made by adopting the proper procedure.”
The AGPR also observed that “eleven deputationists were absorbed (in the IHC) in violation of the rules.”
The eleven were earlier working in the Lahore High Court, Sindh High Court, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation or Balochistan Assembly, and were given more than two steps promotion.
Perhaps the luckiest among the 11 was Shakeel Raza who was working in the Balochistan Assembly in BPS-7 and was absorbed in the IHC in BPS-17.
Other lucky deputationist included Aamir Abdul Majeed who came from the Punjab University where he was working as stenographer in BPS-12 and was placed in IHC five steps above in BPS-17. Saqib Shiraz was working in the PBC in SPS-4 but joined the IHC in BPS-18 as assistant registrar,
Appointment of Usman Mir as assistant registrar in BPS-18 was strange. Before joining the IHC on deputation he was working in a private bank as credit risk analyst.
The son of a Balochistan-based lawyer, Mr Mir’s sister, Faiza Mir, is also employed in BPS-17 in the IHC.
His brother-in-law, Tahir Bokhari, is serving as superintendent to the session judge (east) of Islamabad.
The AGPR observed in the report that “absorption of the deputationists deprived departmental employees their legitimate right of promotion to some of the positions” and recommended an inquiry into the matter.
Likewise, the AGPR was critical of the fresh recruitment in the IHC. There was “no justification for invoking the Rule (about relaxing the rule for making appointments).
Neither were there undue hardships nor the principle of justice was kept in view,” the AGPR observed, suggesting the court authority may revisit all the appointments andabsorptions made in the IHC by relaxing the service Rules.
http://dawn.com/news/1037700
All the appointments, whether through fresh recruitment or on deputation, violated rules and merit criteria, the Accountant General of Pakistan Revenue (AGPR) office reported after conducting the internal audit.
Dawn has a copy of the report. It says that during the scrutiny of the personnel files, the auditors “observed that not a single appointment has been made on merit, and that a number of appointments have been made in relaxation of rules, including absorption of officers and officials (deputationists) in much higher scales than they were holding in their parent departments.”
“Generally the absorption is made in the same scale, or in some special case maximum one stage above only,” notes the report.
“But in the Islamabad High Court deputationists have been absorbed in much higher scale, without any plausible justification.”
Also the procedure of advertising the vacancies, and filling it through open competition after conducting test/interviews, was “totally ignored in all the appointments,” adds the report.
Rule 8 of the Islamabad High Court (appointments and conditions of service) Rules 2011 specifically mentions that initial recruitment to all posts shall be made after advertising the vacancies in the newspapers, and be based on test and interviews.
“It is more alarming that even after advertising the posts of non-gazetted cadres, they were still filled by relaxing the rules and the applicants who had applied against the said posts were deprived of their fundamental right to compete for getting the job on merit,” says the report.
It particularly notes that “no justification or exigency existed as already a reasonable number of employees (more than 200) had been working in the court and there was no hurdle in adopting proper procedure to fill up the vacant posts.
“But it appears that the intention was not there and nepotism/favoritism was allowed to prevail. Even in case of any exigency, the post could have been filled temporarily (not more than for a period of six months) and then regular appointment could have been made by adopting the proper procedure.”
The AGPR also observed that “eleven deputationists were absorbed (in the IHC) in violation of the rules.”
The eleven were earlier working in the Lahore High Court, Sindh High Court, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation or Balochistan Assembly, and were given more than two steps promotion.
Perhaps the luckiest among the 11 was Shakeel Raza who was working in the Balochistan Assembly in BPS-7 and was absorbed in the IHC in BPS-17.
Other lucky deputationist included Aamir Abdul Majeed who came from the Punjab University where he was working as stenographer in BPS-12 and was placed in IHC five steps above in BPS-17. Saqib Shiraz was working in the PBC in SPS-4 but joined the IHC in BPS-18 as assistant registrar,
Appointment of Usman Mir as assistant registrar in BPS-18 was strange. Before joining the IHC on deputation he was working in a private bank as credit risk analyst.
The son of a Balochistan-based lawyer, Mr Mir’s sister, Faiza Mir, is also employed in BPS-17 in the IHC.
His brother-in-law, Tahir Bokhari, is serving as superintendent to the session judge (east) of Islamabad.
The AGPR observed in the report that “absorption of the deputationists deprived departmental employees their legitimate right of promotion to some of the positions” and recommended an inquiry into the matter.
Likewise, the AGPR was critical of the fresh recruitment in the IHC. There was “no justification for invoking the Rule (about relaxing the rule for making appointments).
Neither were there undue hardships nor the principle of justice was kept in view,” the AGPR observed, suggesting the court authority may revisit all the appointments andabsorptions made in the IHC by relaxing the service Rules.
http://dawn.com/news/1037700
Last edited by a moderator:
