2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.

In view of similarity of facts and questions of law, I propose to decide all the following writ petitions through this single order:-- (1) Writ Petition No.4106 of 2006, (2) Writ Petition No.4214 of 2006, (3) Writ Petition No.4679 of 2006, (4) Writ Petition No.4301 of 2006, (5) Writ Petition No.4235 of 2006, (6) Writ Petition No.4233 of 2006, (7) Writ Petition No.4231 of 2006, (8) Writ Petition No.4149 of 2006, (9) Writ Petition No.4107 of 2006, (10) Writ Petition No.4183 of 2006, (11) Writ Petition No.4181 of 2006, (12) Writ Petition No.4167 of 2006, (13) Writ Petition No.4234 of 2006, (14) Writ Petition No.4232 of 2006, (15) Writ Petition No.4182 of 2006, (16) Writ Petition No.4192 of 2006, (17) Writ Petition No.4168 of 2006, (18) Writ Petition No.4150 of 2006, (19) Writ Petition No.4148 of 2006, (20) Writ Petition No.622 of 2007.

2. The facts in brief are that through advertisement published in daily newspapers Livestock and Dairy Development Department through Director Small Ruminants, Government of Punjab invited applications for appointments of employees on contract basis in Basic Scale No.1. After completion of all formalities all the present petitioners were selected and appointment letters were issued, pursuant to which the petitioners assumed their respective duties. However, the Government of the Punjab, Livestock and Dairy Development Department through order dated 26th June, 2006 with immediate effect annulled all the recruitments made by any Provincial/District Recruitment Committee or offer of appointments issued by any Appointing Authority for initial appointment against any post in L&DD Department under Recruitment Policy, 2005 Phase-II, from BS-1 to BS-4, on the ground that these recruitments were not made in accordance with the laid down policy/merit and pursuant to the said order appointments of all these petitioners were terminated by their respective Appointing Authorities. All these petitioners have challenged the said order through these constitutional petitions.

3. The only question requiring determination in all these petitions is whether after completion of all the formalities, issuance of appointment letters and assumption of charge by the petitioners, the said order annulling their appointments through single stroke of pen could be issued without 'issuing any notice and determining the liability of the persons who allegedly made such appointments in violation of the laid down policy/merit? The answer to the above question is the law declared by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case Collector Customs and Central Excise Peshawar and 2 others v. Abdul Waheed and 7 others 2004 SCMR 303=2004 PLC (C.S.) 301 and Muhammad Shoaib and 2 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through The Collector, D.I. Khan and others 2005 SCMR 85, holding that appointments made in violation of rules, the candidates if otherwise qualified cannot be terminated to conceal the lapse of the authority passing such order. It is nowhere mentioned in the comments submitted by the respondents that petitioners were not eligible for the appointment or their appointments were not made by the competent authority. Further there is no material available on the record that any action has been taken against the persons responsible for making such appointments. Again there is no allegation against any of the petitioners that they were privy to the alleged violation of the laid down policy or that they procured appointments by misrepresentation, fraud, etc. It has also been noticed that termination orders of the petitioners have been passed in a sweeping manner by following the order, dated 26-6-2006. It is further observed that through the order, dated 26-6-2006 only the petty employees within the range of BS-1 to BS-4 have been penalized, whereas, appointments made against technical posts and support services for livestock Phase-I above BS-4, have been kept intact without disclosing as to whether these appointments were made within the laid down policy or not. This discrimination cannot be graced with approval especially when it amounts to violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Reliance is placed on the case Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Chairman and others v. Shahzad Farooq Malik and another 2004 SCMR

158. Since the petitioners are contractual employees, therefore, these writ petitions are not hit by Article 212 of the Constitution.

4. Resultantly, all these writ petitions are allowed, the order, dated 26-6-2006 passed by Government of the Punjab, Livestock and Dairy Development Department, annulling the appointments of the present petitioners in a sweeping manner, without notice and without affording them opportunity of hearing and also without disclosing as to whether all these petitioners or anyone of them were not eligible for their appointments nr that their appointments were made by the Authority not competent to make such appointments, is declared as without lawful authority in the light of above cited judgment of the apex Court. In case the petitioners are performing their duties, they shall be paid their due salary. S.A.K./S-79/L Petition accepted.