TI Pakistan's plea to Supreme Court for not revisiting constitutional petition

Transparency International Pakistan has submitted a plea to the Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan for the consideration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan not to revisit constitutional petition 30 of 2013 which was filed by Khawaja Asif of PML (N) and on his prayer, the apex court had passed orders for implementation by the government.
Though the decision was hailed as a victory for PML (N) at that time and judiciary was praised, but now the PML (N) government has since asked to revisit the judgement. At the very outset, TI-Pakistan placed itself at the Mercy of the Lordship and "respectfully submitted that if anything which ought not to have been said or mentioned in the letter, has been mentioned, it is not intentional but as we at Transparency International-Pakistan are striving for rule of law and fighting against corruption and corrupt practices and even facing life threats, we cannot restrict ourselves and leave the country at the mercy of some corrupt elements who can benefit from their corruption while a poor citizen suffers."
"There is nothing for the benefit of the trustees of the TI-Pakistan nor we wish to reap any benefit. However if we can seek some redress and corrupt elements arc put in place, we feel that the purpose is served. Coming to the core issue, Transparency International Pakistan referred to the following:
-- Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Salman Aslam Butt told the Supreme Court of Pakistan that the apex court's Judgement of June 12, 2013 in the Khawaja Asif case ( paras 26 & 27) is proving to be a hurdle in the Chief Executive of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP).
-- The AGP commended that there is a specific law regarding the appointment of DRAP's chief executive, but the appointment could not be made under that law as the court had directed the federal government to form a commission regarding such appointments.
-- The AG prayed before this court to review its judgement in the case of Khawaja Muhammad wherein the government was directed to constitute a commission for ensuring merit in all future public appointments. He further stated that the government has already moved a plea against the formation of such a commission.
Be that as it may, in order to ensure the enforcement of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution and considering it to be a question of public importance. A Commission headed by and comprising two other competent and independent members having impeccable integrity, may be the Federal Ombudsman or Chairman NAB or a member of civil society having exceptional ability and integrity is required to be constituted by the federal government through open merit based process having fixed tenure of four years to ensure appointments in statutory bodies, autonomous bodies semi-autonomous bodies. Regulatory authorities to ensure appointment of all the government controlled corporations, autonomous and semi-autonomous bodies etc.
The Code should provide foundations for transparent merit-based public appointments. All public appointments must be governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit, out of individuals who through abilities, experience and qualifies have a proven record that they best match the need of the public body in question. No public appointment must take place without first being recommended by the Commission. The appointments procedures should be subjected to the principle of proportionally, that is, what is appropriate for the nature of the post and the size and weight of its responsibilities. Those, selec1ed must be committed to the principles and values of public service and perform their duties with highest level of integrity. The information provided about the potential appointees must be made public. The Commission may from time to time conduct an inquiry into the policies and procedures followed by an appointing authority in relation to any appointment. He may also issue a statement or publish a report commenting publicly on any breach or anticipated breach of the Code. The appointment of the successful candidate is publicised.
Transparency International-Pakistan prays before the Chief Justice to consider following major issues, while considering the plea of the Attorney General Pakistan for review of the apex court ruling, which has been made an excuse by the government for the delay in the appointment of DRAP chief in this particular petition.
Vide notification dated 07.02.2009 by the Establishment Division on the summary, which was forwarded to it by the Minister for Commerce. Makhdoom Amin Fahim, prima facie his appointment has been made contrary to the Civil Servants' (Appointment, Promotions and Transfers) Rules, 1973 because for appointment on contract these rules are applicable as its slated in the summary submitted by Tariq Zubair Khan, Section Officer (insurance) Ministry of Commerce.
The above discussion persuades us to hold as under:
(a) That appointment of Ayyaz Khan Niazi was contrary to section 12 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 and rules framed thereunder, as non-transparent, illegal and unwarranted thus, except one of the officers {Tariq Zubair Khan Section Officer), all others, ie Qamar Zaman Chaudhry, the then Additional Secretary; Suleman Ghani the then Secretary Commerce; Makhdoom Amin Fahim. the then Commerce Minister; Ismail Qureshi, the then Secretary Establishment and Ms Nargis Sethi, the then Acting Principal Secretary to Prime Minister are involved in his appointment and, prima facie, are liable to be dealt with under section 9(a){vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 [as amended by National Accountability Bureau (Amendment).
Ordinance, 2002} on account of NICL scam pertaining to Punjab (Lahore) and Sindh {Karachi) where allegedly offences of corruption and corrupt practices have been committed: TI-Pakistan submitted that the Judgement which was in favour of Khawaja Asif as his plea was allowed, how can a prayer be made to revisit it and for what reason.
The government is trying to blow hot and cold in the same breath. When the decision suited them, while sitting in opposition they trumpet the victory and when the same judgement prevented them to have appointments their way, they sudden l y decided to seek a time barred review and prayed the honourable Apex Court to revisit its judgement without showing or giving any plausible explanation.
The review for revisiting the Judgement passed by this court in the manner in which the review has been sought amounts to telling the court that since now the other party is in power and the Judgement obtained against the then ruling party is coming in their way, it should be revisited. This act of the federal government does not only amount to dictating its terms but is an act showing great disrespect to the Judgement earlier passed by this court.