' AYESHA A. MALIK, J.---Through this Petition, the Petitioner challenges order dated 6.5.2016 passed on behalf of the Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and Notification dated 19.8.2015 containing the names of the Civil Judges-cum-Magistrates appointed at the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that he applied for the post of Civil Judge-cum-Magistrate. He passed the test and was called for interview on 14.7.2015. The Petitioner was not interviewed as he was informed that he had concealed registration of FIR No,78/2012, Police Station, Qaboola and his previous service record in the application form for judicial service. Thereafter he was informed through Notification dated 19.8.2015 that he along with six others have been permanently debarred from appearing in any examination for judicial service due to their involvement in criminal cases and suppression of some basic facts. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he cannot be penalized for life as there is no provision in the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 ("Rules") to debar an advocate from appearing in any examination of judicial service for the rest of his life. It is also his case that the concept of permanent disqualification was never mentioned in the advertisement issued in the month of January, 2015, hence it could not be levied on the Petitioner.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner was questioned on the maintainability of the instant Petition. The basic challenge in this Petition is an order issued by the Administrative Committee headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court in its meeting held on 19.8.2015. In the said meeting, seven Judges of the Lahore High Court including the Hon'ble Chief Justice decided that persons who had concealed registration of cases against them or material facts in their application forms would be permanently debarred from participating in any examination for judicial service. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the case cited at Ch. Muhammad Akram v. Registrar, Islamabad High Court (PLD 2016 SC 961) to urge the point the Petition is maintainable on the basis of the latest view of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan.
4. The judgment cited at PLD 2016 SC 961 (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the Petitioner essentially looks at the process for appointments, absorptions and transfers made in the Islamabad High Court which were stated to be in violation of the Islamabad High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 ("2011 Rules") and in violation of Rule 26 of the Lahore High Court Rules 1981 ("1981 Rules"). In this case, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the discretionary power exercised by the Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court under Rule 16 of the 2011 Rules and Rule 26 of the 1981 Rules and held that the discretionary powers were not in accordance with the rules of the court. The import of the judgment, with respect, is not to interfere in all administrative affairs of the High Court which have duly been passed under the Rules of the court or where the Court has taken a policy decision. The emphasis of the court was on the exercise of powers under Rule 26 of the 1981 Rules and the violation thereunder. The said judgment is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner and the arguments that the constitutional petition lies against all administrative orders issued by the Lahore High Court is misconceived. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has not referred to the violation of any fundamental right or any rules. He is aggrieved by a policy decision of the Administrative Committee of this Court, hence reliance placed on PLD 2016 SC 961 (supra) is totally misconceived.
It is also added that propriety demands that a decision of the Hon'ble Chief Justice or the Administrative Committee be challenged in a higher forum that is before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan because invoking Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against Senior Coordinate Judges of this Court will affect the comity and concordance amongst the Judges and upset their administrative working. Hence the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case cited at Abrar Hassan v. Government of Pakistan and another (PLD 1976 SC 315) has held that all actions and orders taken by the High Court or has been that order by any Judge thereof in exercise of functions and powers of his office are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
5. Therefore for the above reasons, the instant petition is not maintainable and dismissed in limine.