S
•L
\0
SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, CJ
Mr. Justice Uaz ul Ahsan
Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar
CIVIL PETITION NO.4740 OF 2017
[Against the judgment dated 23.10.2017, passed by the Peshawar
High Court, Peshawar in W.P.No.524-P of 2016 with CMs No. 1023-
P of 2016 & No.425-P of 2017]
Mian Hikmatullah Jan son of Mian Abdul
Wahid, resident of Tanijabba District
Nowshera. 
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
Chairman and Members of Selection
Board Constituted for Selection and
Interview for the Post of Additional
District and Sessions Judges for District
Subordinate Judiciary Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar High Court,
Peshawar and another.
Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) 
Mr. Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Malik,
ASC
(via video link from Peshawar)
Respondent(s) N. R.
Date of Hearing 22.12.2021
JUDGMENT
GULZAR AHMED, CJ.- The Peshawar High Court,
Peshawar (the High Court) had invited applications for the post
of Additional and District Sessions Judges. The petitioner
applied for the said post and appeared in the written
examination, which the petitioner claimed to have been
qualified. The interview was scheduled and the petitioner was
also called for the interview but subsequently, the petitioner i
CP.4740 of 2017
-2-
was not interviewed rather his documents were sent to the
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Bar Council for verification.
Pursuant thereto, it was found that the petitioner's name has;
been struck off from the Roll of the Advocates vide Khyber•
Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council order dated 24.08.2013. Then
petitioner was, thus, disqualified from being appointed to the
Post of Additional District and Sessions Judge. The petitioner
filed a writ petition in the High Court with a prayer that he may
be allowed to appear in the interview and may be considered for
the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge on merit. By
the impugned judgment dated 23.10.2017, the writ petition of
the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended
that the petitioner was not disqualified as his license has merely
been suspended by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council and
further the High Court was not justified in seeking verification
of his Wakalat Na,nas.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to
show the order of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council
showing that the license of the petitioner has been suspended.
The learned counsel referred to page 73 of the paper book which
contains the reasons for disqualification made by the High
Court and at Serial No.10 appears the name of the petitioner
where it is noted that his membership remained suspended
from July, 2013 to 29.01.2016 and has submitted Wakalat
 Namas for the same period and so disqualified.
CR4740 of 2017
4. We note from the document appearing at page 74 of
the paper book, which is a letter of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar;
Council, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner's
name was struck off from the Roll as per executive order dated
24.08.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not refer.
to this document, which is available in the paper-book. The
name of the advocate being struck off from the Roll of the
Advocates, apparently, means that he is no more practicing
advocate under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act,
1973, and cannot claim himself to be a practicing advocate.
5. 
The very advertisement for appointment to the post
of Additional District and Sessions Judges specifically require
the candidate to be a practicing advocate, which condition was
not fulfilled by the petitioner. The High Court in the impugned
judgment has addressed this very aspect of the matter and
found that the petitioner was not a practicing advocate when he I
applied for being appointed as an Additional District and
Sessions Judge. 
M
6. So far the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner regarding Wakalat J'Tamas, we note that in the face of
the fact that the petitioner was not a practicing advocate at the
time when he applied for being appointed to the post of
Additional District and Sessions Judge, thus, was not eligible
for being appointed. The question of petitioner continuing
practice and filing his Wakalat Namas even after his name had
been struck off from the roll of the advocates, is a matter which
is to be attended to by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council
-r
I
ii
I
CR4710 of 2017
and the Khyber Palchtunkhwa Bar Council should take notice off
,
such fact and take action as per the law.
7. 
No illegality in the impugned judgment is Pointedij
out calling for interference by this Court. The petition
therefore, dismissed and leave refused
8. 
Let a copy of this judgment order be sent to the Vice!(
Chairman Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council for dealing with it
accordingly.
Bench-I
Islamabad
22. 12.2021
010R1l)oI?IIN(;