Daily Times

A hearing challenging the appointment of chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB) was heard by Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani of Islamabad High Court (IHC). The petitioner impugned the appointment of chairman ETPB made by Ministry of Religious Affairs that it was not made in accordance with law and rules thus the same to be set aside through exercising high court constitutional jurisdiction.

Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court, appeared as legal counsel for Evacuee Trust Property Board and defended the appointment of Habib Gillani as chairman. He submitted in court that Ministry of Religious affairs being the competent ministry advertised the post of Chairman Evacuee Trust Property in December 2021 whereby 41 candidates applied for the post and out of which 20 candidates were shortlisted who met the required criteria for the said post. The Counsel further argued that out of those 20 candidates, 17 candidates appeared in interview including the petitioner and respondent, which was conducted by a high power selection panel Selection Board approved by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, and out of which, a panel of three was forwarded through a summary in March 2022 to the Prime Minister for onward placement before the final nod of cabinet as per rules of business.

He further submitted that the Summary for the appointment was rightly placed before the Cabinet as an agenda item and accordingly the appointment of Habib Gillani was approved as Chairman Evacuee Trust Property among the panel of three in April 2022 by Cabinet being most suitable which has been reflected in the minutes of meeting of the Cabinet along-with other agenda items.

Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar further argued that the appointment was made by the Ministry of Religious affairs in a very transparent manner after advertising the post and later on a panel of three including the name of petitioner was proposed and recommended in order after interviewing the shortlisted candidates. He further argued that during all the appointment process till its finalization all rules and regulations were strictly followed by the Ministry of Religious affairs, Establishment Division and Cabinet Division being the relevant departments, and there was no legal problem or violation with the appointment process or its issuance of notification. He further submitted in court that the Cabinet had considered the summary and approved the appointment as per rules of business and in accordance with Supreme Court observations given in Mustafa Impex case that all such appointments and matters required to be done by the Federal government are required to be placed before the Cabinet for their consideration and approval, and the same has been done under rule 20(1) and rule-20(5) of the Rules of Business, 1973 required for the summary for the d appointment of Chairman, ETPB.

He also argued that the petition in present form of quo warranto was not maintainable as it lacks all legal requirements required in law, and simultaneously the petitioner also prayed that while setting aside the impugned appointment of respondent the petitioner himself should be appointed as Chairman ETPB which as well it’s not legal, thus according to the Counsel of ETPB, not entitling the writ petitioner for any discretionary relief under the constitutional jurisdiction. He finally argued as there was no mala fide or was any person specific appointment but it was validly processed and appointed by adopting all codal formalities by the relevant departments including by Ministry of Religious affairs and finally by the Cabinet, thus the petition being devoid of law and facts; therefore the same may graciously be dismissed.

The learned judge after hearing both sides at length dismissed the petition.