2015 P L C (C.S.) 489
[Balochistan High Court]
Before Muhammad Noor Meskanzai, C.J. and Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail, J
ABDUL SATTAR KHAN DURRANI and others
Versus
PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary and 5 others
Constitutional Petition No.545 of 2014, decided on 30th December, 2014.
Constitution of Pakistan ---
----Art. 199---Constitutional petition ---Civil service ---Contractual employment ---Scope---
Regularization of service of contract/ad hoc employee ---Petitioners being public prosecutors
sought regularization of their service ---Validity ---Prosecutors had been appointed on contract
after taking competitive examination through the process of Public Service Commission---
Process of recruitment of prosecutors had been initiated and applications had been invited by the
Public Service Commission ---Contractual employment did not confer any right for regularization
of service---Contract/ ad hoc employee could not claim any vested right ---Appointments of
petitioners were not only on c ontract basis but their services might continue as long as Public
Service Commission had finalized the recruitment process ---Petitioners were temporary and
contract employees and their services were liable to termination on twenty four hours notice
from ei ther side on any ground in lieu of one month's pay paid or deposited---Petitioners were
estopped to raise any question on legality or validity of their contractual employment by
accepting the terms and conditions of service ---High Court observed that dispe nsation of justice
was likely to be affected due to such lethargic and unattended attitude of official respondents ---
Official respondents were directed to address the issue without further delay ---No case had been
made out in favour of petitioners ---Consti tutional petition was dismissed in limine.
Nasrullah and others v. Chairman, WASA and others 2014 PLC (C.S.) 531; Government
of Balochistan v. Dr. Zahida Kakar 2005 SCMR 642; Muhammad Wasay Tareen v. The Chief
Justice of Balochistan through Registrar of Balochistan High Court 2005 SCMR 464; Abdul
Waheed and another v. Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Sports, Tourism and Youth Affairs,
Islamabad and another 2002 SCMR 769; Dr. Mubashir Ahmed v. PTCL through Chairman
Islamabad and another 2007 PLC (C.S) 737; Muhammad Ali Satakzai and others v. Appointing
Authority of Additional District and Sessions Judges and others 2011 PLC (C.S) 78; Muhammad
Ali Satakzai and others v. Appointing Authority of Additional District and Sessions Judges and
others 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1216; Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. through Chairman v.
Iqbal Nasir and others 2011 PLC (C.S.) 623; Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law,
Justice and Parliamentary Affairs v. Muhammad Azam Chattha 2013 SCMR 120; Muzaffar
Khan and others v. Government of Pakistan 2013 SCMR 304 and Messrs Oil and Gas
Development Company Ltd., Islamabad through Chief Executive v. Muhammad Azhar Chughtai
2014 SCMR 812 rel.
Muhammad Aslam Chishti for Petitioners.
Namo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 21st August, 2014.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL, J. --- Through this petition
following relief has been sought: ---
"Respondent No.1 is obliged to implement its own decision arrived at on a Summary
dated 10- 9-2013 as approved by the Chief Minister on 10- 10-2013 and take necessary steps;
(b) Recommendation of Committee under Chairmanship of 2nd respondent are infructuous
and of no legal effect; the Committee travelled beyond its constitution order and
recommendations are ultra vires;
(c) To direct respondent No.1 to implement decision to regularize services of petitioners;
(d) Honourable Court be further pleased to issue writ of prohibition restraining respondents
1-3 from giving effect to the recommendations and or placing requisition with the Public Service
Commission for filling the posts in incumbency of petitioners and also to restrain 4th respondent
from acting on any requisition in pursuance of recommendations of the Committee."
2. The succinct facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are that the petitioners and pro
forma respondent No.6 viz. Miss Sarwat Mukhtar are serving on contractual basis in the
prosecution department, Government of Balochistan. The duration of their contract appointments
were different to each oth er and the petitioner No.2 was appointed as Deputy Prosecutor -General
(BS-18), on 10- 11-2010 till further order as long as the Balochistan Public Service Commission
("the Commission") finalizes the recruitment process. The petitioner No.l was appointed as
Additional Prosecutor General (BS -19), on 10 -11-2010 but for the period of two years w.e.f.
issuance of his appointment order by the competent authority. The petitioner No.3 and
respondent No.6 were also appointed as Additional Prosecutor -Generals (BS -19) on 10- 2-2011,
for the period of two years w.e.f. issuance of their appointment order by the competent authority.
The petitioner No.4 was appointed on 2- 4-2012 and the duration of her contract employment
cannot be ascertained from the contents of the petiti on nor any document in this behalf has been
appended with the petition. However, the summary dated 18th December, 2013, which was
forwarded by the respondent No.3 (page 181) to the competent authority, for extension in period
of their contract employment, shows that their contracts were also extended till 30th May 2014.
Though, the order of approval of said summary has not been appended with the petition but
another summary dated 4th June, 2014 issued by respondent No.3 confirms the said fact, wherein
the r ecommendation for extension in contract period of the petitioners along with other
prosecutors was solicited. It appears that the last summary was yet to be approved, when the
petitioners approached this court by filing this petition, on 13- 8-2014.
3. The backdrop of this petition has nexus with the policy of regularization of contract/ad
hoc appointments. The Federal Government in office during the last regime decided to initiate an
incentive to regularize the services of contract/ad hoc/daily wages empl oyees of the Federal
Government and the cabinet sub- committee under the then Minister for Religious Affairs was
constituted to scrutinize and approve the cases for regularization of referred to employees
working in any Ministry/ Division/ Attached Departme nts/ Autonomous Bodies, Organizations
and Line Agencies of the Federal Government. In pursuance whereof the Establishment
Division, Cabinet Secretariat Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, vide office memorandum
dated 29th July, 2011 (Annexure -C), issued dir ectives to the Ministries/Divisions to furnish the
details of contract/daily wages employees working in various departments, autonomous bodies,
as well as, the employees of devolved Ministries. The office memorandum dated 12th August,
2011 (Annexure -C1.) i n which the said directives were re- issued with further direction to
expedite the process and furnish the details as soon as possible. The Establishment Division vide
letter dated 23rd January, 2012 intimated the then Chief Secretary Government of Balochis tan
about the desire shown by the then Prime Minister during his visit to Quetta on 10th and 11th
October, 2011 for regularization of services of referred to employees. Thereafter, the Services
and General Administration Department Government of Balochista n (respondent No.2) issued an
office memorandum dated 7th February, 2012 in pursuance of directives of the Cabinet Division,
for initiating the process of regularization. On 25 -2-2012 the Secretary Prosecution Department
furnished the details on prescribed pro forma for regularizing the services of the contractual
employees/the prosecutors to the Additional Chief Secretary (Development) and P&D
Department with reference to the S&GAD's letter dated 7th February 2012.
4. The aforesaid development in the hie rarchy of Federal Government inspired the
petitioner No.2 and he stirred up the regularization of his contract employment and submitted an
application (not filed) to the then Chief Minister, on which, vide official letter dated 16- 8-2012
the Chief Minister 's Secretariat directed the Secretary Prosecution Department to submit a
summary for regularization of his service.
The then Chief Minister at the verge of completion of his tenure in the office conveyed
his desire to all the departments at provincial level vide letter dated 21 -3-2013, for regularizing
the services of all contract employees in the province. In pursuance of the Chief Minister's
directives, the Secretary Prosecution Department submitted a formal summary dated 10 -9-2013
for regularization o f service of Prosecutors including the petitioners, which on the directives of
the Chief Secretary was submitted for approval to the then Chief Minister being competent
authority. The referred to summary was pending for final approval, when the contract pe riod of
the petitioners and other prosecutors was already lapsed, therefore, through summary dated 18th
December, 2013, their services were extended till 30th May, 2014 on the strength that the
meeting of the committee for regularization of prosecution department employees was yet to be
convened, while prior to submitting the referred to summary, the Chief Secretary Balochistan
vide Notification No.SO(R -1)/l(8)S&GA/2013 dated 11- 12-2013, constituted a committee for
regularization of service of contractual employees working in the Prosecution Department under
the Chairmanship of Secretary S&GAD (respondent No.2), the Secretary Law and Parliamentary
Affairs Department, the Secretary Finance Department and the Secretary Prosecution
Department as members. The meeting of the committee was finally convened on 3rd June, 2014
and the issue of regularization of contractual employees of prosecution department was
thoroughly discussed and after deliberations following recommendations were made: ---
"The committee reco mmended that as appointments on posts of B -18 and B -19 are made
on the recommendations of Balochistan Public Service Commission (BPSC), therefore,
Prosecution Department should send requisition for filling posts to Balochistan Public Service
Commission (BP SC) at the earliest. On receipt of recommendation from BPSC for appoint of
Prosecutors, the services of contract Prosecutors will automatically be dispensed with/stand
terminated. However, Prosecution Department may, till receipt of recommendation from
Balochistan Public Service Commission (BPSC), extend the contract period of these Prosecutors
temporarily keeping in view their performance and requirements. If post occupied by any
contract base Prosecutor, as in the list, falls vacant for any reason, approp riate legal procedure
and codal formalities will be observed for filling this post."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the recommendations referred to
herein above also referred to various office Memorandums and Notifications is sued by the
Government of Balochistan and as well as, various press clippings of daily newspapers
pertaining to regularization of contract employees and contended that in view of policy statement
of the Prime Minister of Pakistan during his visit to Quetta and pursuant to the directives issued
by the Establishment Division Government of Pakistan, the contract employees in the
Agriculture and Cooperative Department, the Culture, Tourism and Archives Department, the
Women Development Department and the Irriga tion and Power Department have already been
regularized by the Government of Balochistan. The learned counsel mainly stressed upon a
summary dated 10th September, 2013 and contended that when the recommendation for
regularization of services of contractual employees was already concurred by the then Chief
Secretary Government of Balochistan (respondent No.1) and on his directives submitted for
approval to the competent authority, then no occasion was available to respondent No.1 to re -
enforce the committee and reconsider the issue, which was already materialized and was pending
before the competent authority for final approval. He asserted that the constitution of the
committee at subsequent stage and its finding dated 3rd June, 2014 were corum non judice and
said exercise was carried out without any plausible reason, when the final fate of the summary
dated 10th September, 2013 was still awaited. He further stated that the committee vide its
impugned findings wrongly placed reliance upon this court's judgment dated 23- 10-2013 passed
in C.P. No.306 of 2011 tilted as "Nasrullah and others v. Chairman WASA and others" by
adopting a misconceived interpretation of the said judgment because the subject matter of the
said constitutional petition was neither identica l to the petitioners' case nor the proposition
involved therein was applicable. He also made reference to the section 6 subsections (1) and (2)
of Balochistan Prosecution Service (Constitution, Function and Powers) Act, 2003 ("Act, 2003")
and maintained that, though, the recruitment in service shall be made through a competitive
examination held by the Balochistan Public Service Commission ("the Commission") but subject
to rules framed by the government in this behalf.
The learned counsel on the strength of letter dated 11th October, 2012 addressed to
respondent No.3 (the Secretary Prosecution) by the respondent No.5 (the Prosecutor General
Balochistan) stated that summary for approval of Service Rules was pending since long and in
absence of any such rul es the process of recruitment through the Commission cannot be
materialized, therefore, prior to recommendation of regularization committee the summary for
regularization of petitioners along with other prosecutors was already submitted. Therefore, it
woul d be more appropriate that instead of implementing the recommendation of regularization
committee dated 3rd June, 2014, the summary dated 10- 9-2013 as concurred by the then Chief
Secretary on 29 -9-2013 shall be given affect and the official respondents may also be directed to
regularize the services of the petitioners and to further restrain them from recruitment through
the Commission. He finally urged that the petitioners along with others have served the
department for a reasonable time and they were dis charging their duties with best of their
abilities and to the utmost satisfaction of their department. He maintained that the incentive for
regularizing the services of contract/ad hoc employees was implemented throughout the country
and more than one hundred thousand employees were regularized in the province of Sindh, as
well as, in other provinces and at Federal level, therefore, if the said benefit is not extended to
the petitioners it will not only amount to deny the principles of equity, equality of c itizens but
will also amount to infringement of their fundamental rights. He prayed for setting aside the
findings of regularization committee dated 3rd June, 2014 and sought directions for
implementation of earlier summary dated 10 -9-2013.
6. We have heard the learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court at reasonable length and
have also gone through the referred to documents and official correspondence with care and
caution. The controversy involved in this petition revolves around the regularization of the
services of the contractual employees.
The petitioners' case is mainly based upon the earlier summary dated 10 -9-2013 and
according to them the recommendations therein were not only concurred by the then chief
secretary but the same was also submitted for approval of competent authority. It appears that
with passage of time and due to changes in political scenario, the political incentive of the
previous regime could not be implemented in this case. Though, the services of contractual
employees of other provincial departments are stated to have been materialized. Learned counsel
was of the view that the petitioners' case is at par with those employees who have already been
benefited from the referred to incentive of the Federal Government. Before adverti ng to the
points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner it would be helpful to reproduce the note
appended with summary dated 10 -9-2013 (sought to be implemented) rendered by the then
Secretary S&GAD i.e. respondent No.2, which reads as follows: ---
"7. The case has been examined. It is submitted that the summary of Prosecution Department
is not self explanatory as to whether these Prosecutors have been appointed on contract basis
through a proper selection process of appointment or otherwise. As per Government of
Balochistan, Finance Department circular project employees/contract employee have no right to
get adjusted on regular strength of non- development budget. They have to compete with others
through prescribed procedure to any regular budget post.
8. S&GAD has no objection on regularization of such contract employees who are working
against a regular post and have been appointed after due selection process and have completed
all codal formalities."
7. Irrespective of the aforesaid note ap pended to the summary dated 0- 9-2013, it appears
that subsequently, the Chief Secretary realized the acuteness of the issue and numerous
judgments passed by this court as well as by the Hon'ble apex court, therefore, instead of
implementing the recommendations in slipshod manner, the committee for examining the cases
of regularization was constituted. The meeting of the committee could not be convened because
the personal files, the educational testimonials and evidence of professional qualifications of the
purported contractual employees were not completed, therefore, initially the letter dated 1- 1-
2014 of the prosecution department (respondent No.3) addressed to the Prosecutor General
Balochistan (respondent No.5) and on completion of the requisite informa tion the committee was
convened and the paras 7, 9 and 10 of the minutes of the meeting shows the long deliberations
and discussions, which being relevant are reproduced herein below (page 139): ---
"7. The Committee perused the whole record regarding met hodology adopted for
appointment of these (24) contractual employees. It was noted with concerns from the record
available that neither most of the posts were advertised nor the criteria for age, qualification,
appointment by relevant competent authority a nd regional quota had been appropriately observed
as required under the law. The age of these contractual employees ranges from 40 -64 years.
Many of the Prosecutors were appointed against the substantive /regular posts. Posts of some
Prosecutors of ATC on fixed salary without any grade were filled by the Law and Parliamentary
Affairs Department after advertisement of the posts.
8 .
9. Committee discussed that no appointment in public service can be made without
observing the required codal formalities and without defined and publically known clear criteria
of selection qualification, experience, age, zonal allocation. This exercise has to be done with
transparency and provision of equality of opportunity to all candidates as guaranteed in the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Committee further discussed that no rule/procedure
exists for appointment or consideration of contract employees for regularization against
substantive posts. Committee was also of the opinion that no recruitment/ appointments can be
done by the Departments without recommendations of the Balochistan Public. Service
Commission by the Act of the Provincial Assembly of Balochistan. If there is any emergency for
filling these posts, they can be filled on ad hoc basis only by observing procedure laid down in
the Rule 17 and Rule 4(ii) a of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and
Transfer) Rules, 2009 which has not been observed by the Prosecution Deportment and grave
illegalities have been committee in these appointments.
10. The committee after long deliberation and discussion reached to the conclusion that the
contract appointment of these (24) Prosecutors as per list presented in the meeting cannot be
considered for regularization. Consideration of contra ct employees for regularization would not
only be in contravention of rules/law but will also be against the Judgment/order of the Hon'ble
Higher Courts on the subject issue and would set an illegal depraved precedent.
The perusal of minutes of the commi ttee further reveals that the learned committee under the
chairmanship of the then Secretary S&GAD has relied upon the judgment dated 23- 10-2013 of
this court passed in C.P. No.316 of 2011 titled as Nasrullah and others v. Chairman, WASA and
others reporte d in (2014 PLC (C.S.) 531) and one of us (Justice Muhammad Kamran Khan
Mulakhail) was a member of the said bench and co -signatory of the referred to judgment,
operative part whereof is reproduced herein below: ---
"The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any law, which entitles the
petitioners to be 'regularized' in service or in a particular grade. The concept of 'regularization' is
illegal, unless a law so specifically provides. It appears that first appointments are made without
advertising the posts and by bypassing the applicable law, and then this illegality is perpetuated
by 'regularizing' the same. Appointments in government service and in statutory bodies, like
WASA, must be made in accordance with the applicable law."
In view of referred to para of the judgment supra the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners is without any substance because so far the question of regularization of services
of contract employees are concerned, the referred to judgment sati sfactorily deals with the
proposition, however, the facts of each case cannot be identical in nature, therefore, contention
regarding misconceived interpretation of referred to judgment is not worthy of credence.
8. The issue of regularization of contrac t/ad hoc employee has been coming before this
court on multiple occasions, as well as, before the Hon'ble apex Court of the country and there
are plethora of judgments on the subject, a few of which will be referred to herein below. In the
case of Government of Balochistan v. Dr. Zahida Kakar (2005 SCMR 642) the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of Pakistan observed as under: ---
"It is an admitted fact that the service of the respondents was on purely temporary basis
and specifically on contract. Such appointment terminates on expiry of contract period or any
extended period on choice of the employer or the appointment authority. Prima facie it does not
create any vested right."
In another reported judgment in the case of Muhammad Wasay Tareen v. The Chief
Justice of Balochistan through Registrar of Balochistan High Court (2005 SCMR 464) dictum
was laid down in Para 7, which runs as under: ---
"In Federation of Pakistan and another v. Hashim Shah Qureshi 1987 SCMR 156 it was
held that mere continuance of employ ment of temporary employee for two years or more in
service did not ipso facto convert the appointment into permanent one. In the case of Nila Khalid
v. Pakistan through Secretary Defence and others PLD 2003 SC 420, it was laid down that ad
hoc appointment did not confer on a appointee any right or interest to continuous appointment,
seniority or promotion and that service of such an appointee could be dispensed at any moment
without assigning any reason."
In Abdul Waheed and another v. Secretary, Minist ry of Culture, Sports, Tourism and
Youth Affairs, Islamabad and another (2002 SCMR 769) dictum was laid down as under: ---
"We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel and found same are
without substance. We may observe that despite being no specific bar for exercise of powers of
competent authority by an officiating director, still he would not be supposed to exercise such
powers of appointment/promotion of the employees without the proper sanction and allocation of
budget besides observing the prescribed procedure including a advertisement of the post in the
newspaper. The appointment made by the officiating director without following the prescribed
procedure would not be legal and consequently the petitioner would neither have any right to
hold any such post nor were entitled to the salaries and other benefits attached with the said
post."
In another case titled, as Dr. Mubashir Ahmed v. PTCL through Chairman Islamabad and
another (2007 PLC (C.S) 737) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as follows: ---
"The order dated 15 -9-1996, 28- 4-1997 and 4 -2-2000 show that the petitioner was
appointed on contract/part time basis. There is no cavil to the proposition that an employee
appointed/ engaged on contract/part time basis has got no vested right to claim for being
absorbed/appointed on regular/permanent basis."
The issue relating to recruitment through the Commission came up before this court in
respect of regularization of the services of Additional Sessions Judges made on contract basis in
Muhammad Ali Satakzai and others v. Appointing Authority of Additional District and Session
Judges and others (2011 PLC (C.S) 78) authored by my learned brother Justice Jamal Khan
Mandokhail. Whereby, the appointment of judicial offi cers through public service commission
was sought to be declared as ultra vires to the provision of Article 175 of the Constitution and the
same was accepted but the second part of their prayer pertaining to regularization of their ad hoc
appointment made on contract basis, was turned down with the following observation: ---
"Furthermore, ad hoc appointment did not confer on the petitioners any right or interest to
continuous appointments, seniority or promotion under the law ................ therefore st atus of the
petitioners could not be changed unless regularized by adopting the procedure/method, as such,
request so made has no legal footing and same is declined. Reliance is also placed on the
following judgments. 1987 SCMR 167, PLD 2003 SC 420, 2003 S CMR 1269 and 2005 PLC
(C.S.) 1085."
The referred to judgment was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in
Muhammad Ali Satakzai and others v. Appointing Authority of Additional District and Sessions
Judges and others case reported in (2012 PLC (C.S.) 1216), and while refusing the leave to
appeal it was held as under: ---
"3. The learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners could not show how the
conclusions reached by the High Court regarding the initial appointment of the petitioners being
without complying with the procedure prescribed for the purpose, were open to any exception on
the legal or even on the factual plane. He could also not show how any right had got vested in the
petitioners which could entitled them to the regularization of their services in violation of the
conditions on which their appointments had been made and subject to which conditions the
petitioners had accepted the said appointments.
4. In this view of the matter, since one of the afore -mentioned conditions was that the
appointment in question of the petitioners would not confer upon them any right for permanent
absorption as Additional District and Sessions Judges, therefore, we find that the impugned
judgment, to the said extent did not admit of any interference."
The principles laid down in referred to judgment was reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in its recent judgments and the issue of regularization of services of contractual employees
was attended on basis of same principles, and it would be advantageous for learning of all
concerned to mention the relevant citations as under: ---
Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. through Chairman v. Iqbal Nasir and others
(2011 PLC (C.S.) 623)
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs v.
Muhammad Azam Chattha (2013 SCMR 120)
Suo Motu Case No.15 of 2010 Human Rights Cases (H.R.C) No. 44517- K of 2010, HRC
No.13938- P of 2010, HRC No.22070- P of 2011 and in Constitutional Petition No.74 of 2011
Muzaffar Khan and others v. Government of Pakistan reported as (2013 SCMR 304).
Messrs Oil and Gas Development Company Ltd., Islamabad through Chief Executive v.
Muhammad Azhar Chughtai (2014 SCMR 812).
9. Now adver ting to the contention of learned counsel that since no service rules were
framed subject to provision of section 6 of the Balochistan Prosecution Service (Constitution,
Functions and Powers) Act, 2003 (Act No.6 of 2003), therefore, the services of the pet itioners
should necessarily be regularized in absence of relevant rules. Before attending to the contention
it would be advantageous to reproduce the section 6 of the Act 2003, which runs as under: ---
"6(1). Subject to rules framed by the government in t his behalf, the recruitment in the Service
shall be through a competitive examination held by the Balochistan Service Commission.
(2) Government may frame rules prescribing qualifications and other eligibility criteria for
deputation to and induction int o various posts of the Service."
The contention raised by the learned counsel is also without any substance because at
page 167 of the petition the Notification No.SO (Legal) Pros:/(1- 16)/2009/859/948 dated 22nd
March, 2010 shows that an amendment was i ntroduced in the Balochistan Prosecution (B -16 and
above) Service Rules, 2006. The perusal of said notification shows that the criterion for initial
recruitment and recruitment by promotion has been prescribed for the positions of Additional
Prosecutor Gen eral (B -19) Deputy Prosecutor General (B -18) District Public Prosecutor (B -18)
and Superintendent (B -16), while the perusal of impugned minutes of the regularization
committee shows that two contractual prosecutor i.e. Miss Shazia Sultana and Mrs. Noor Jahan
Kahoor (mentioned in para 6) have been appointed after taking the competitive examination
through the process of Public Service Commission. While at pages 175 and 177 of the petition an
advertisement is also attached, which show that the process of recr uitment of District Public
Prosecutors was initiated and applications were invited from the eligible candidates by the
Balochistan Public Service Commission vide said advertisement published in Daily 'Jang' Quetta
dated 2nd July, 2014. Thus, the contention regarding non- framing of rules has further been
rebutted by means of referred to advertisement.
10. In view of above discussion and constant view rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Pakistan and followed by this court in referred to judgments, we a re of the considered opinion
that continuance and time to time contractual employment does not confer any valuable right for
regularization of service and the recommendations of the regularization committee contained in
the impugned minutes dated 3rd June, 2014 are well reasoned, based upon the principles of
natural justice because the petitioners were not appointed according to the law and rules framed
thereunder. The positions, which the petitioners hold, were never advertised in any newspaper,
their serv ices were not obtained on basis of written test and interview, therefore, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of Pakistan is rendering a constant view that contract/ad hoc employee cannot
claim any vested right. Moreover, the appointment orders of the petitioners show that their
appointments were not only on contract basis but it has also mentioned therein that their services
may continue as long as the Commission finalizes the recruitment process and their notification
of appointment further stipulates that they are temporary and contract employees and their
services will be liable to termination on twenty four hours notice from either side on any ground
in lieu of one month's pay will be paid or deposited. By accepting the referred to terms and
conditions of service the petitioners are estopped to raise any question on legality or validity of
their contractual employment.
Before parting with this judgment, it is observed with grave concern that due to lethargic
and unattended attitude of the official respondents t owards the prosecution of criminal cases, the
courts are not only facing hardship to proceed with criminal cases but the dispensation of justice
is likely to be affected, the reason being that the prosecutors cannot discharge their part of
obligation because of discontentment of mind on account of contract/ad hoc appointment. Copy
of this order shall be sent to the official respondents to address this long lasting issue without any
further delay and we expect that the learned incumbents at executive level are cognizant of this
acute and long awaited issue.
In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no case under the
constitutional jurisdiction of this court is made out in favour of the petitioners; therefore, the
petition is dismis sed in limine.
AG/1/Bal. Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.