1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2. The learned counsel of the petitioners contended that the petitioners who are Diploma Holders have assailed the preparation of the separate seniority list inter alia on the ground that the rules do not permit maintaining of separate seniority list. He further stated that respondents malafidely did not decide the representations of the petitioners simply to give benefit to the respondents Nos. 4 to 51.

3. Mr. Mehboob Ahmad, Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 stated that writ petition is not maintainable as relationship of the petitioners and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 is of master and servant. The regulations framed by the respondent are not statutory regulations. He relied upon 1992 PLC (C.S) 1214 Abdul Shafique's case. He further stated that Syed Zahid Aziz respondent No. 15 and Mr. Majib Raza Khan Warsi, respondent No. 32 filed a suit for declaration against respondents Nos. 1 to 2 and Ata Ullah Chatha and five others on the ground that Ata Ullah Chatha and five others are diploma holders. They ate, not eligible to be promoted as Senior Engineer/Xen as they are neither professional Engineers nor registered with Pakistan Engineering Council: that the maintenance of joint seniority list whereby showing the holders of B.Tech. (Hoes) senior to the Graduate Engineers on the basis of earlier promotion to the post of S.D.O in BS‑17 was challenged by graduate Engineers i.e. respondents Nos. 15 and

32. The suit was decreed in their favour. An appeal was lodged but it was also dismissed which was implemented in letter and spirit. The petitioners did not challenge the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Lahore before this Court, therefore, judgment of the Civil Court is binding and final between the parties. Ch. Muhammad Saleem, Advocate the learned counsel of the other respondents stated that respondents Nos. 15 and 18 have filed a suit for declaration which was decreed and the appeal of Ata Ullah Khan was dismissed, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable to nullify the effect of the judgment of the Civil Court. He further stated that judgment of the civil Court is binding and final. So far as respondents Nos. 15, 32 and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned on the well‑known principle of res judicata and waiver. The petitioners have alternate remedy to agitate the matter by filing an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. before the trial Court or agitate the same in time before this Court. He further stated that the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have implemented the judgment of the Civil Court in letter and spirit on 4‑6‑1994, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. He also admitted this fact that the petitioners are not party in the civil suit filed by respondents Nos. 15 and

32. The learned counsel of the petitioners in rebuttal stated that judgment of the civil Court is not binding and final qua the petitioners as the petitioners are not a party in the suit. He relied on PLD 1982 SC

120. He further stated that the controversy in the civil suit was that B‑Tech Degree was to be treated as equivalent with B.Sc. Engineering or not, therefore, judgment of the Civil Court is binding even on merits qua the petitioners a5 the issue in the suit for declaration was qua the equivalence to the qualification of diploma holders as well as Graduate Engineers. He stated that the petitioners who are diploma holders have assailed the preparation of the separate seniority list on the ground that the Rules of the respondents de not permit maintaining of separate seniority list. The respondents prepared separate seniority list for the reason that the diploma holders are not entitled to further promotion in view of the bar contained in the Pakistan Engineering Council Act. He stated that the stand of the respondents is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Sadiq's cases PLD 1996 SC

182. The relevant observation is as follows: ‑ "It has held that the Government had the exclusive domain to decide whether any particular qualification would be considered sufficient for promotion from any particular grade to a higher grade and that the Government is vested with the power to change such policy from time to time, whereas Pakistan Engineering Council have exclusive demand to decide as to whether a particular qualification could be required with another academic qualification but it has no power to show that a civil servant/employee holding a particular academic qualification could not be termed from a particular grade to a higher grade. " The aforesaid proposition of law is supported by the following judgment: ‑‑ Fida Hussain's case PLD 1995 SC 701, Pakistan Development Engineers Federation's case 1994 SCMR 1807, Muhammad Munawar Qureshi's case 1997 PLC (C.S.) 1099, Pakistan Engineering Council's case 1998 SCMR

811. He further stated that judgment, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Article 189 and Article 190 of the Constitution. He further stated that action of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 is against Article 4 and Article 25 of the Constitution.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties. It is admitted fact that the petitioners filed representations before respondents on the following dates: (1) 18‑12‑1993 (2) 27‑3‑1994 (3) 28‑3‑1994? (4) 16‑4‑1994 but the respondents did not decide the representations of the petitioners till date. It is the duty and obligations of the public functionaries to redress the grievances of the citizens as is envisaged by Article 4 to the Constitution without fear, favour and nepotism. It is also duty and obligations of the public functionaries to act within the framework of law and the Constitution as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahid Akhtar's case PLD 1995 3C

530. It is also settled proposition of law that public functionaries have to act and treat all the persons equally as is envisaged by Article 25 of the Constitution as the principle laid down by .the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A. Sherwani's case 1991 SCMR 1041. It is inherent right of the petitioners that their representations must be decided by the respondents in accordance with law within reasonable time but the respondents failed to decide the representations of the petitioners till date. It is also settled proposition of law that each and every case is to be decided‑on its own peculiar circumstances and facts. The contention of the legal Advisor of respondents Nos.l to 3 that the writ petition is not maintainable has no force. I am fortified by the judgment of D.B. of this Court 1997 PLC (C.S.) 1146 Maqbool Elahi's case. Even otherwise the respondent has circulated provisional list on 4‑6‑1994 and the petitioners filed representations against the aforesaid provisional list ‑meaning thereby there is no final list circulated by the respondents till date Therefore, writ petition is maintainable. PLD 1981 SC

612. This Court has ample ‑power to give directions to the public functionaries to act in accordance with law by virtue of Article 4 of the Constitution. I am fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court PLD 1981 SC

612. In‑view of these circumstances respondent No. 3 is directed to decide the representations of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law preferable within one month after receiving the order of this Court. He is further directed to submit report to the Deputy Registrar of this Court within the stipulated period. With these observations this writ petition is disposed of. ??????????? H.B.T./S‑387/1??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Order accordingly.