2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner challenged the vires of the order of the respondents dated 17-12-1998 through this Constitutional petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner is exactly similar to the case of Maliha Azam and Shahida Nadeem and this fact was not denied by the respondents in reply of para.

7. He further submits that the impugned order does not contain any reason for rejection of the case of the petitioner. He further submits that respondents are duty bound to act in accordance with law. He further urged that after the addition of section 24-A in the General Clauses Act, respondents are duty bound to give reasons for rejection of the proposal qua the petitioner.

2. Learned Additional Advocate-General submits that writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that petitioner is a civil servant and writ petition is not maintainable by virtue of Article 212 read with section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act. He further submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to take the role of the policy maker or to take the role of the employer. He further submits that petitioner was appointed on contract basis. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner wants enforcement of the contract through this Constitutional petition. He further submits that respondents did not accept the proposal of the petitioner on account of financial constraint. He further submits that action of the respondents-is in accordance with terms and conditions of the petitioner as is envisaged by appointment letter that the respondents are at liberty to dispense with the services of the petitioner without notice. ,

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the contents of the para. 7 of the writ petition and report and parawise comments to resolve the controversy between the parties.

7. That on 25-2-1996 the services of Admitted to the extent that the Shahida Naeem and Maliha Azam services of Maliha Azam and were also regularised and the Shahida Naeem have been petitioner was told that her case regularised as per Annexure (H). was under consideration. Thereafter, services of Rubina Syed who had been appointed alongwith the petitioner were also, regularised. The arrears due to be paid to the afore-mentioned persons whose services were regularised were also paid. In case the contents of para. 7 and reply of para. 7 are put in a juxta-position then it is a case of discrimination which is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution. Public functionaries are duty bound to act in accordance with law as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution without fear, favour and nepotism. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has laid down guidelines for the public functionaries to act within the framework of Constitution and law in Zahid Akhtar's case PLD 1995 SC

530. The aforesaid reply of the respondents reveals that petitioner is penalised by the inaction of the respondents. Therefore, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by this Court in Ahmad Latif's case PLD 1994 Lahore

3. It is not denied by the respondents that action of the respondents is not hit by Article 25 of the Constitution in case the contents para wise comments and writ petition are put in a juxta-position. Therefore, action of the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I. A. Sherwani's case 1991 SCMR 1041. After the addition of section 24-A in General Clauses Act it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to redress the grievance of the citizens subordinates with reasons as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1998 SCMR 2268 (M/s. Airport Support Services case). The command of the Constitution is that public functionaries must act within the frame work of Constitution. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate-General that this Court has no jurisdiction is not sustainable as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.M. Rizvi's case PLD 1981 SC

612. This Court has ample power under Article 199 of the Constitution to give directions to the public functionaries to act in accordance with law by virtue of Article 4 of the Constitution. In view of what has been discussed above the impugned order is set aside let a copy of this writ petition and order be sent to the Director Technical Education Punjab, Lahore who is directed to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law with reasons within two months. He is further directed to send report to the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court. Disposed of with these observations. H.B.T./S-204/L Petition allowed.