KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Wednesday directed the authorities concerned to appoint a visually impaired lawyer, who had fulfilled all relevant criteria around a decade ago apart from medial certificate, as civil judge/ judicial magistrate after relaxing the fitness conditions.

The SHC observed that unfortunately, the career of the petitioner as judicial officer was sacrificed at the altar of red tape, strict adherence to technicalities and lack of compassion while the same was done in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and the law to protect differently-able persons from discrimination at workplace.

The two-judge constitutional bench headed by Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha also said that the petitioner should be appointed on the terms and conditions applicable under the Sindh Judicial Service Rules within four weeks and if no such vacancy existed he be appointed when the next vacancy becomes available.

About the benefits the petitioner seeking from the date of recommendation about his appointment, the bench stated that since he had been practicing as a lawyer and earning a livelihood, no back pay or benefits were awarded to him and the petitioner`s seniority to be determined by the administrative committee of the SHC if the petitioner moved such an application.

It also noted that the government was moving with the times and passing legislation which was more responsive to the needs of its citizens and the courts must also play their role in implementing suchbeneficial legislation.

Citing the law department, registrar of SHC and others as respondents, Syed Sadiq Hussain had petitioned the SHC in 2016 and sought directive for them to relax the medial conditions for his appointment as civil judge/judicial magistrate and to release the salary and other benefits right from his date of recommendation for appointment, ie July 22, 2015.

However, additional advocate general Ali Safdar Depar contended that the maximum age limit even in case of extension of benefit of upper age limit for an advocate practicing was 35 years while the petitioner was over 39, while in the subject advertisement for the post of civil judge & judicial magistrate published in the year of 2014, there was no mention of quota for differently able persons.

Besides, he also argued that the petitioner had also filed application for the post of additional district & sessions judge which was accompanied a medical certificate issued by the Services Hospital declaring the petitioner as visually impaired.

The benchinits ordernotedthat the petitioner was a promising practicing lawyer who had aspired to be come a civil judge and had also fulfilled all the relevant criteria including the written examinations and interview conducted by the provincial selection board consisting of the senior most judges of SHC and listed on serial No.39 on the merit list out of 78.

He was then sent along with the other successful candidates before the medical board for his medical, but unfortunately the medical board due to his impaired vision found him unfit to join the judicial service, it added.

Thereafter, the bench noted that the petitioner wrote a letter to the then chief justice of SHC setting out the adverse medical finding and requesting for a relaxation in his medical fitness requirement.

`Unfortunately, his letter went unanswered as per record. Thus, as a last resort he approached thiscourt in the constitutional jurisdiction for relief by filing this petition in 2016 which is over 8 long years ago,` it added.

The bench also stated that such narrative had been confirmed by the comments of the registrar of the SHC who only took the exception that the petitioner was over age and that the job advertisement for the post for which he applied did not include any disability quota.

In fact, a close examination of the record reveals that at the time of his application the petitioner was within the prescribed age limit, it said and added that the main obstacle in the way of petitioner being appointed as a civil judge/judicial magistrate was his impaired vision.

It said, `We find that the Registrar`s argument in his comments that the advertisement did not cater for differently abled persons frivolous as when the petitioner applied for the post The Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance 1981 was in the field which we find along with the other Acts relating to disabled persons mentioned above are automatically built into and become a part of any job advertisement`.

The bench also said that the petitioner should have been treated in a more humane and compassionate manner and if the SHC was doubtful that the petitioner could perform the required functions of the post it should have called him and discovered the extent of his disability itself and found out whether he would be able to perform the functions of his post despite his disability and even put him on probation if necessary.

`We note that since the filing of this petition that the petitioner has continued to regularly practice law before both the high courts and lower courts where he has numerous cases to his credit. In court he was able to read his petition, he can type and demonstrated that he can use electronic devices with the aid of other modern devices for persons with impaired vision`, it added.