MUHAMMAD AWAIS SHAHID vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And Other
The petitioner, a serving Civil Judge, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of two constitutional petitions by the Lahore High Court. The first petition challenged his exclusion from competing for Additional District and Sessions Judge vacancies reserved for practising lawyers. The second petition sought a writ of quo warranto against the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court regarding the constitution of a selection committee for these judicial appointments. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, while serving as a Civil Judge, was ineligible to apply for positions specifically reserved for practising lawyers. Regarding the second petition, the Court ruled that the selection committee members were performing functions ex officio as High Court Judges, not holding a separate public office, and thus a writ of quo warranto was inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court determined the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the selection process due to his ineligibility. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitions and refused leave to appeal.
- Is a serving Civil Judge eligible to compete for judicial vacancies reserved for practising lawyers?
- Can a writ of quo warranto be issued against High Court Judges performing selection committee duties?
- Does a candidate lacking eligibility for a post have locus standi to challenge the selection process for that post?
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR REHMAN, J.-- The petitioner by to separate petitions seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 21-4-1984 and 9-5-1984 whereby to constitutional petitions filed by him failed.
2. The petitioner was initially a practising lawyer. He was subse--quently recruited as a Civil Judge.
3. While posted in that capacity he applied for competing for the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge against the reserved- vacancies for practising lawyers. He was not allowed to do so. He instituted a constitutional petition contending that he was qualified and eligible to compete and should not have been prevented from doing so. This constitutional petition was dismissed on 21-11-1983 and the intra-Court appeal also failed on 21-4-1984.
4. He filed another constitutional petition for a writ of quo warrants challenging authority of the Chief Justice of Lahore High Court to constitute a selection committee comprising Judges of that Court for selecting the practising lawyers for appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judges. This petition was held to be misconceived and dismissed.
5. The petitioner is present in person and has been heard.
6. Apart from the facts noted in the judgments under appeal, it is clear to us that on the date the petitioner applied for appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judge, he was not eligible to do so. The vacancies against which recruitment was sought were reserved for practising lawyers, which the petitioner was not. He could not, therefore, while holding the post of Civil Judge seek recruitment against the vacancies reserved for practising lawyers.
7. As for the legality of the constitution of the Selection Board and its functioning, it has to be noted that there is no public office of members of Selection Committee as such. It is a function of the holder of a public office viz. The Judge of the High Court. For such an ex officio functioning of a rightful holder of a public office, quo warranto cannot issue. The petitioner has no locos standi otherwise to interfere in the selection, he being not eligible.
8. No merit in either of the petitions. Leave to appeal is refused in both.