1. This is not a suo moto case.
How?
The judgement says advocate Junaid Farooqi filed the petition as a citizen of pakistan in the interest of the nation.
One thing has come to light that Advocate Junaid farooqi was the advocate of written failures in Sindh High.
Previous orders of this case in Supreme Court also say that he was advocate for failures.
That means the suo motu doesnot stand. This case comes in the ambit of an adversarial court not a suo motu.
Evidence:
The details of case in which Mr Farooqi was counsel of the failures
C.P 2141/2016
Amanullah vs spsc.
2. In light of above fact there are two parties in conflict. The court is supposed to arbitrate and act neutral. But here the court has become the party
3. In light of fact number 2 the issue of cce13 should have been dealt with as a separate case not as a part of suo motu case.
4. Junaid farooqi was not travelling to islamabad just in national spirit but in capacity as the counsel of failures.
It was he who have facilitated the failures to write CMAS to the court and to bring them to appear in court in person. And the more interesting point, if true. Those failures had been declared failed in sindhi. But the proof for this were not provided.
5. What about those who have resigned from their previous jobs? Their concern has been left unaddressed in the judgement.
6. The original petition of junaid farooqi was not CCE specific. It was a general one and it demanded nullifying all the recommendations made under saleem bhour. Not just cce. But the court has focused only on cce 2013.
7. The alleged discrepancies doesnot prove nepotism. Those discrepancies were done of spsc, and spsc can be asked to furnish replies for it. Why CCE 2013 candidates have been victimezed for other's fault.
8. The members which SC considers as ineligible they have not been denotified. Their qualification has not been contested. Then how can they been called as ineligible? They are eligible on papers.
9. Even if members are indeed ineligible. Even if all the alleged discrepancies are valid. The issue can be resolved with reinterviews. The reinterview of all appointments and recommendations made during tenure of Saleem Bhonr. They include 1800 appointments, 6000 doctors and CCE 2013. No need for more damaging option of rewritten of only CCE 2013.
10. Contrary to what the judges say, none of lawyers of successful candidates of CCE 2013 has ever requested for early resolution of the case.
11. Apart from the offer letters of acs, offers letters of many other groups had not conditioned the employment on the successful completion of training. For instance, there was no mention of training in offer letters of sos. Sos fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the employment. Hence they stay appointed and they are a part of government
0 Comments