2011 PLC (C (PLP)

SARDAR SHAUKAT HAYAT, J.

The grievance of the petitioners is that they were appointed on contract as PTC teachers through Departmental Selection Committee vide appointment order dated 7-9-2002. That on 1-11-2005 respondent No.2 in order to implement the verdict of apex court, the High Court Peshawar and Government of N.-W.F.P. E&AD Department Notification regarding contract policy directed all Agency Education Officers in FATA to regularize the services of all those appointees from the date of their appointments who were considered for appointment in pursuance to advertisement published before the introduction of contract policy i.e. 1-7-2001. That again on 24-5-2006, respondent No.2 informed all the Agency Education Officers, FATA to implement the Notification dated 10-8-2005 regarding regularization of contract employees. Petitioners submitted applications to respondent No.3 on different dates i.e. 3-7-2006, 26-12-2006 and 19-2-2007 for regularization of their services' as they were interviewed for the post of PTC prior to the enforcement of contract policy by Government of N.-W.F.P. They also submitted an application dated 22-2-2007 to respondent No.1, who vide Annexures "H" and "I" of writ petition endorsed the same to respondent No.5 with direction to implement the Notification dated 10-8-2008, otherwise, strict disciplinary action will be initiated against the defaulters.

2. The stance of the respondents is that the posts against which the petitioners were appointed, were advertised vide advertisement dated 7-9-2002 after the contract policy i.e. 1-7-2001, therefore, petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of regularization. Arguments heard. Record perused.

3. The only reason for denial of respondents to consider petitioners for regularization from the date of their appointment is that they were appointed in the year, 2002 i.e. after introduction of contract policy dated 1-7-2001, on contract and are not, therefore, entitled to be regularized in service from the date of their appointment. It is evident from Annexure "A" to writ petition, which is the appointment order of the petitioners, that the petitioners were appointed on contract for a 'period of three years vide order dated 9-9-2002, while such posts against which they are appointed, were advertised on 16-7-2000 in Daily Mashriq, wherein interview was held on 12-9-2000 and the petitioners appeared in the same. The advertisement is attached with their rejoinder, to the comments filed by respondents. Petitioners also relied upon merit list dated 10-7-2002 annexed with better statement filed by respondents issued by the office of the Agency Education Officer, Orakzai Agency at Hangu in support of their claim that they were interviewed and selected/recruited on merit, for the post of PTC for (Upper Orakzai Agency). The perusal of the instant merit list duly signed by the Agency Education Officer shows that in the column of age against the names of petitioners it is written as "Age on 7-8-2000" and in the column of "Remarks" only serial number against the name of each petitioner is given, which is the same serial number shown in the appointment order of the petitioners on contract dated 7-9-2002. The `Age column' noted above shows the age of the petitioners as on 7-8-2000. This document in itself is sufficient proof that petitioners were interviewed and brought on merit list, on or about 7-8-2000, well before 1-7-2001. Any further doubt in this regard stands removed by a letter dated 27-6-2002 issued by Deputy Director of Education (FATA) in pursuance whereof the above merit list seems to have been prepared, wherein all Agency Education Officers have been directed "that previous merit list of PTC should be considered and the joint merit list shall be determined".

4. It was the argument of learned counsel for petitioners that the said contract policy is not applicable to the petitioners as they were interviewed and selected for appointment to the post of PTC by Departmental Selection Committee before 1-7-2001 and their appointment is to be considered on regular basis. He also referred to the judgment of this court in a case titled "Rukhsar Ali and 11 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. and 3 others reported through 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1453. At the relevant time the appointment orders of the petitioners could not be issued probably for the reason that certain identical petitions were stated to be pending before this court and apex court.

5. It is evident from letter dated 1-11-2005 issued by Director of Education, FATA (Annexure "C") to all concerned Assistant Education Officers in FATA, that the candidates appointed as a result of advertisement published before the introduction of contract policy i.e. 1-7-2001 were to be regularized w.e.f. their appointments. Similarly, a reminder was also issued on 24-5-2006 by Deputy Director of Education (PATA) for implementation of letter mentioned above.

6. Again a letter dated 8-3-2007 was issued to Agency Education Officer, Orakzai Agency by Deputy. Director Education, FATA to regularize the contract service of the petitioners otherwise strict disciplinary action will be taken against the defaulters.

7. From perusal of the letters and previous selection/recruitment of the petitioners to the post of PTC mentioned above, it is crystal clear that the interview and selection of the petitioners was held before the contract policy dated 1-7-2001 but their appointment was delayed till the year, 2002 for no fault on their part.

8. Keeping in view the above discussion, we accept the writ petition in hand and declare that the petitioners were interviewed and recommended for selection to the post of PTC prior to the contract policy dated 1-7-2001 and direct the respondents to regularize their services from the date of their appointment. C.M.488 of 2009 having become infructuous also stands disposed of. H.B.T./341/P Petition accepted.