The Peshawar High Court in two recent judgments questioned the role of former speaker of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly, Asad Qaiser – now Speaker of National Assembly – as custodian of the top legislative organ of the province, while declaring two of his orders illegal.

A bench comprising Justice Roohul Amin Khan Chamkani and Justice Qalandar Ali Khan on Nov 13 allowed two separate petitions filed by lawyer Ali Azim Afridi.

In one of the petitions, the bench declared as illegal the appointment of an officer of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) Syed Waqar Shah as special secretary to the speaker on deputation and subsequently absorbing his services in the Assembly. In the other petition, the bench declared as illegal the promotion of the director (automation and IT) KP Assembly, Attaullah Khan, from BPS-20 to BPS-21, which was the second upgradation given to him against the said post.

In one of the judgments the bench ruled that it was observed that there had been flagrant violations of law/rules, besides scant regard for judgments of the apex court by the Speaker, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly, in order to accommodate and reward the blue eyed.

“This is yet another example of such reckless exercise of authority and powers by a person who claims to be ‘custodian’ of the top legislative organ of the province,” the bench ruled, adding “Obviously, this court cannot shut its eyes to such arbitrary exercise of powers and authority by a person in his position, in utter violation of law/rules and judgments of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan”.

The detailed judgments authored by Justice Qalandar Ali Khan ruled: “One wonders that how the Speaker, after trampling clear provisions of law and rules and also the most celebrated judgments of the august Superior Courts thereby depreciating the unscrupulous practice of absorption of outsiders on extraneous considerations against lucrative posts in civil service, could nevertheless claim to be ‘custodian’ of the top legislative organ of the province, mandated by people of the province to legislate for them.”

“It was indeed unfortunate that a person occupying such a dignified position in the province, especially in the realm of enacting laws for the province, showed scant regard for the laws and rules (2018 SCMR 54, 2018 SCMR 48, 2017 SCMR 2051, and 2015 SCMR 456),” the court rules.

In the petition related to appointment of special secretary, the petitioner had pointed out that a post of special secretary to Speaker was created for a period of six months, in anticipation of approval of finance committee so as to assist the speaker and in order to fill the post, services of Respondent No 1, Syed Waqar Shah, who was working as senior officer, flight services in PIA Corporation (PIAC) were requisitioned on deputation basis through an order on Dec 27, 2013.

The petitioner stated that a meeting of the finance committee of the Assembly took place allowing approval of creation of the said post of special secretary.

He added that although services of Syed Waqar were requisitioned by way of transfer on deputation basis for three years, yet through another order issued by the then speaker (Asad Qaiser) on Dec 15, 2014, he was absorbed in the Assembly Secretariat in disregard of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, which were widely circulated.

The respondents in that petition, including the speaker, had opposed the petition, stating the respondent Syed Waqar was absorbed through a legal process which was also not objected to by the other secretariat employees as the post was newly created, having nothing to do with the terms and conditions of service. It was added that employees of the assembly were classified civil servants only for limited purpose of Service Tribunal Act.

The respondents disputed assertions of the petitioner, stating that the Provincial Assembly had its own constitutional status and it was not subordinate to any provincial institution. It was added that the Speaker under the Constitution and Rules of the Assembly was custodian of the House as well as Assembly.

The bench ruled that it was abundantly clear from the whole exercise undertaken on the orders of the Speaker that the post of Special Secretary to the Speaker in BPS-19 was created in indecent haste for a specific person who was serving as senior officer Flight Services in PIAC and whose credentials for the post were still shrouded in mystery and best known to the respondents, particularly the Speaker.

The court ruled that the transfer on deputation of Syed Waqar to the Provincial Assembly Secretariat against the newly and ‘specially’ created post of special secretary to Speaker Provincial Assembly, KP, was in clear violation of the Recruitment Rules, 1974, from the very inception, and thus void ab initio, and the superstructure of appointment on deputation for a further period of three years and subsequent absorption built on such a void order of transfer on deputation was not sustainable, not only because of elements of nepotism and favoritism clearly discernible from the savory conduct of authorities in the Assembly, especially speaker, who played key role in bypassing clear provisions of law and rules of the Assembly, despite his tall claim of being “custodian’ of the assembly.

In the other petition, the petitioner pointed out that earlier in 2009 a notification was issued allowing promotion to the respondent (Attaullah Khan) against the upgraded post of director (automation and IT) (BPS-20) as personal to him; and through the impugned subsequent notification on March 16, 2018, personal upgradation was again allowed to him at the behest of the Speaker in violation of the rules and judgments of the Supreme Court.

The bench ruled that the impugned notification of March 16 was in clear violation of notification of the Provincial Assembly of Aug 29, 2011, relating to Provincial Assembly Secretariat employees upgradation policy, 2011, laying down in clear terms that “personal upgradation shall be made once during the whole service period” and that “no such upgradation shall be made in favour of such employees whose posts have once personally upgraded either before or after promulgation of this policy.”

A legal expert said that these judgments were of immense importance as different assembly speakers had been dealing with the Assembly like their personal fiefdoms and were involved in arbitrary acts, especially illegal appointments.

Published in Dawn, November 26th, 2018