Sitting judges move against High Court ruling
Monday, 28 July 2008
Sitting High Court Judges moved against the HC ruling reinstating their unconfirmed colleagues with seniority over them, reports UNB.
Aggrieved at the edict of their own High Court Division of the Supreme Court, 19 HC Judges Sunday filed an application seeking leave to appeal against the HC ruling that asked the government to treat the appointment of 10 unconfirmed additional judges as regular judges ensuring their seniority with retrospective effect since their non-confirmation.
It came out as a double-pronged challenge against the confirmation-denied judges as the government also filed a stay petition prior to filing appeal against the HC order.
After a brief hearing, Chamber Court of Justice MA Matin referred the matter for hearing before the full court of the Appellate Division on July 29.
The chamber court also passed an identical order on the government application seeking stay on operation of the High Court judgment as it also prefers leave to appeal.
The aggrieved incumbents who filed the leave-to-appeal application are Justices Syed M Dastagir Husain, Mir Hasmat Ali, Abdul Awal, Sharif Uddin Chaklader, M Mizanur Rhman Bhuiyan, Syed AB Mahmudul Huq, Salma Masud Chowdhury, AFM Abdur Rahman, Farid Ahmed, M Abu Tariq, M Abdul Hafiz, Syed Refaat Ahmed, Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury, M Miftahuddin Chowdhury, M Emdadul Huq, M Rais Uddin, M Emdadul Haque Azad, M Ataur Rahman Khan and SM Emdadul Haque.
Most of the judges were appointed during the immediate-past BNP-led coalition rule (2001-2006) allegedly "on political considerations sans efficiency and integrity", which had triggered resentment among the members of the Supreme Court Bar.
The judges in their application submitted that the impugned HC ruling has "gravely prejudiced against our seniority" for giving retrospective operation of the unconfirmed judges' appointments, which is a "violation of all canons of law".
The judges further submitted that the writ petitioners had no justiceable right at all. "If for any reason they were not appointed, they cannot move the court to appoint them as regular judges of the High Court as the Constitution does not confer any right upon an additional judge to claim as of rights that he should be appointed again," the group of judges said.
"There is no such enforceable right," the group of judges said in their strong plea against reinstatement of their predecessors.
They further pointed out that Court of law has no power to give effect to any right not recognized by law. "It is also not the function of the Court of Justice to enforce or give effect to normal allegations which do not carry with them legal or equitable rights," it is stated in the petition.
Aggrieved at the edict of their own High Court Division of the Supreme Court, 19 HC Judges Sunday filed an application seeking leave to appeal against the HC ruling that asked the government to treat the appointment of 10 unconfirmed additional judges as regular judges ensuring their seniority with retrospective effect since their non-confirmation.
It came out as a double-pronged challenge against the confirmation-denied judges as the government also filed a stay petition prior to filing appeal against the HC order.
After a brief hearing, Chamber Court of Justice MA Matin referred the matter for hearing before the full court of the Appellate Division on July 29.
The chamber court also passed an identical order on the government application seeking stay on operation of the High Court judgment as it also prefers leave to appeal.
The aggrieved incumbents who filed the leave-to-appeal application are Justices Syed M Dastagir Husain, Mir Hasmat Ali, Abdul Awal, Sharif Uddin Chaklader, M Mizanur Rhman Bhuiyan, Syed AB Mahmudul Huq, Salma Masud Chowdhury, AFM Abdur Rahman, Farid Ahmed, M Abu Tariq, M Abdul Hafiz, Syed Refaat Ahmed, Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury, M Miftahuddin Chowdhury, M Emdadul Huq, M Rais Uddin, M Emdadul Haque Azad, M Ataur Rahman Khan and SM Emdadul Haque.
Most of the judges were appointed during the immediate-past BNP-led coalition rule (2001-2006) allegedly "on political considerations sans efficiency and integrity", which had triggered resentment among the members of the Supreme Court Bar.
The judges in their application submitted that the impugned HC ruling has "gravely prejudiced against our seniority" for giving retrospective operation of the unconfirmed judges' appointments, which is a "violation of all canons of law".
The judges further submitted that the writ petitioners had no justiceable right at all. "If for any reason they were not appointed, they cannot move the court to appoint them as regular judges of the High Court as the Constitution does not confer any right upon an additional judge to claim as of rights that he should be appointed again," the group of judges said.
"There is no such enforceable right," the group of judges said in their strong plea against reinstatement of their predecessors.
They further pointed out that Court of law has no power to give effect to any right not recognized by law. "It is also not the function of the Court of Justice to enforce or give effect to normal allegations which do not carry with them legal or equitable rights," it is stated in the petition.