ISLAMABAD: The uncertainty in the affairs of Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) deepened on Saturday as Zaka Ashraf got a second life after Justice Noorul Haq N. Qureshi of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) set aside the Statutory Regulatory Order (SRO) issued by the PML-N government which brought Najam Sethi in the PCB as chairman.

Earlier, on Jan 15, the IHC division bench sent Sethi home by reinstating Zaka as PCB chairman with Justice Qureshi being one of the two members of the said bench.

Zaka was suspended in July last year by the IHC during the hearing of identical petitions filed against his appointment.

Following the reinstatement of Zaka in January, the PML-N government on Feb 10, 2014 constituted an Interim Management Committee (IMC) through the SRO and appointed Sethi as its chairman. The IMC under the said SRO superseded the PCB governing board and removed Zaka as PCB chairman.

Justice Qureshi having heard petitions of 38 dismissed PCB employees who were seeking their reinstatement and had challenged the SRO of Feb 10, reserved the judgment on May 15.

Legal counsel for an IMC member Dr Babar Awan said during the hearing on Thursday that there were two issues related to this matter: one is about the SRO/notification and the other is about termination of service of PCB employees.

Advocate Awan said that the court should take up the employees’ matter first, and sought adjournment in this matter from the court. The court then put off hearing for two and half hours.

Also, PCB counsel Tafazzul Rizvi argued before the court that termination of 38 PCB employees was in accordance with the law as PCB terms of service were non-statutory. He said that the PCB was established under an SRO constitution and had its own internal rules that were non-statutory and no writ petition was admissible.

While referring to high court judgments, he said that the court held in its judgment that PCB rules were non-statutory.

He produced before the court a copy of PCB service rules and said that according to these rules, ‘either party can terminate contract of the service with one month notice.’

Advocate Rizvi also argued regarding territorial jurisdiction and said that these petitioners had been serving in Lahore and their contracts of service were terminated there. So, they should have filed their petitions before the Lahore High Court instead of the IHC.

Referring to the matter of Test leg-spinner Danish Keneria, advocate Rizvi said that the spin bowler had filed a writ petition before the Sindh High Court when he was removed from the national team. But the Sindh High Court then directed him to file the case before the Lahore High Court as per territorial jurisdiction.

He further said that these petitioners attacked the Feb 10, 2014 SRO/notification just when they were terminated, adding that they did not challenge it earlier.

Afnan Karim Kundi Advocate, who is counsel for petitioner Syed Tanvir Naqvi, adopted before the court that some of the petitioners were aggrieved due to order of PCB’s IMC that is not a competent authority as their appointment was illegal and they are alien to the PCB.

Advocate Kundi said that the PCB was functioning under the Sports Development & Control Ordinance (SDCO) 1962, adding that there were two boards under the SDCO: the Pakistan Sports Board and PCB. As per this ordinance, the board had perpetual succession while it was said that the name, constitution and powers of the board will be defined by the federal government, he added.

Advocate Kundi further said that if a statutory body would form the rules, how come these rules be non-statutory. He said that PCB rules were statutory and the IMC doesn’t have the power to remove PCB employees.

He also argued that the IMC was constituted for 120 days and the task given to it was to hold PCB elections and form a new board.

Published in Dawn, May 18th, 2014