ISLAMABAD: The question as to who should head the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) — a post that has become a revolving door due to unending litigations — once again reached the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The Ministry of Inter Provincial Coordination (IPC) that overseas sport activities in the country has moved a petition for yet another time, challenging the May 19 Islamabad High Court judgment of reinstating Zaka Ashraf in place of Najam Sethi.

The last such petition by the IPC for reinstatement of Najam Sethi was withdrawn from the Supreme Court on Jan 31 when the court had declined to interfere in matters that fall under the executive domain.

Moved by rights activist Asma Jehangir, the petition has been fixed before a three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Justice Ejaz Afzal and Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman for Wednesday.

The petition has pleaded before the Supreme Court to set aside the high court order and by restoring Statutory Regulatory Order (SRO) 4-14/2008-IPC-S-11 former PCB boss Najam Sethi be restored along with the Interim Management Committee (IMC) set up on Feb 10 for 90 days.

The purpose of the IMC was to streamline the affairs of the PCB and to align its constitution towards representative governance in view of the abysmal state of politicisation of PCB affairs and management.

The petition argued that the high court through its judgment misinterpreted the dominant object of the petitions filed by a number of PCB employees against the termination of their services and challenging the SRO through which the IMC was set up.

The IMC was appointed on Feb 10 but challenge to its constitution arose only after the dismissal of PCB employees — a situation obviously exploited and supported by vested interest, the petition pleaded also reminding that another petition filed on Feb 11, 2014 challenging the SRO appointing IMC was still pending before the same high court.

The high court judgment has mixed up the notion of natural justice with the maintainability of a petition filed by an employee whose employment is regulated through non-statutory rules, the petition emphasised adding that the high court had assumed as if the IMC was not authorised to initiate long-term decisions when the preamble of the SRO 4-14/2008 clearly depicts the mind of the patron — the president — in appointing the IMC.

The restored PCB chairman, Zaka Ashraf, the petition alleged, with a dysfunctional Board of Governors has already started vendetta against professionals associated with the PCB.

Within hours of assuming charge, legal adviser Tafazzul Rizvi was sacked. Reports filtering out of the PCB suggest that senior officers of the finance department are being grilled and have been put under pressure to change the contents of the internal audit report as well as some critical record that lead to revelations of financial irregularities in Zaka Ashraf’s split tenures.

The petition highlighted that the IMC had undertaken serious reforms in drafting a constitution and submitting the same to the IPC ministry but alleged that the high court judgment had not disclosed or discussed any arbitrariness or mala fide intention on part of the government in its objective to change the management for smooth governance of the PCB.

Moreover, the judgment has also wrongly presumed that the IMC or the government was not moving towards holding elections in the PCB, the petition contended adding the verdict if not reversed promptly would create a situation that would have long term detrimental effects that could ruin the game of cricket in Pakistan.

Since multiple reforms had been undertaken by the IMC like holding of elections, drafting of PCB constitution and making alliances in addition to important contracts and commitments to save Pakistan cricket from becoming isolated, but the judgment has unleashed a chain of events that would create immense chaos and destruction costing millions and millions putting at perils all the reforms. Thus the judgment had struck a fatal blow to the PCB, losing its credibility in international cricket.

The petition argued that the high court verdict had failed to differentiate between statutory and non-statutory appointments, ignoring that in the case of statutory appointments, a writ could be issued but in non-statutory appointments it cannot. The PCB employees fell in the latter category and even in case of summary dismissal in non-statutory appointments, the only relief available is a suit for damages.

Published in Dawn, May 21st, 2014