FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRSAND JUSTICE, ISLA versus SINDH HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION THROUGH PRESIDENT
Arts 175A, 197 and 185 ()) Additional judges of the High Court are already senior with the approval of the permanent appointment of additional judges of the High Court, and the Parliamentary Committee has denied the confirmation / permanent appointment of Additional High Court judges. Were the names of Two judges were appointed as additional judges of the High Court for a period of one year, according to the proposed legal status of the Judicial Commission, after which the Judicial Commission (Commission) expired on June 9, 2009, after the expiry of one year. Job extension was recommended. The committee approved their names and a notification for extension of their tenure was issued. The Chief Justice of the High Court then forwarded his opinion, recommending the names of six judges, including two judges. The Commission / Permanent Appointment Commission confirmed their names for certification. And the committee sent to the committee for consideration only confirmed the commission's view of the confirmation of the four judges, but the chief justice had given his performance, knowledge and information about them in the past against the chief justice. On the basis of negative remarks, the two judges in question refused to recommend the confirmation. The High Court, however, stumbled upon the Committee's decision on the basis of its merits and financial integrity and non-payment of income tax on the grounds that its decision was beyond its jurisdiction and on the powers of the Commission on the Committee. Exceeded. Was it the sole decision of the committee to record its dissent / opinion on the recommendations of the Commission, presenting the reason for such a decision, and filed by the committee not to confirm the questions by the judges? The reasons to go were based on appropriate information
