' EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.---To streamline Planning, execution and monitoring of development project and to cope with their even increasing heavy work load, the Government of N.-W.F.P., respondent No,1 herein, created a Planning Cell under the name of Strengthening of the Local Government and Rural Development Department through a formal PC-1 and pursuant thereto advertised the posts of Planning Officers and stenographers etc., in various newspapers and thus invited applications from the eligible candidates therefor. Two Selection Boards, one for conducting interviews for the posts of BPS-16 and above and other for the posts of BPS.5 to 11 were constituted by respondent No,1. On their Selection by the Board, the petitioners were appointed by respondent No,1 with the approval of the Addl. Chief Secretary, respondent No,4 before this Court, on contract basis for a period of six months with effect from 1-11-1988 with the conditions that respondent No,1 will place the requisition in respect of all posts in BPS-16 and above before the Public Service Commission.
The period was further extended upto 30-6-1990. However, during this span of time the petitioners drew their pay out of Development budget. In the meantime, the N.-W.F.P. Employees on Contract Basis (Regularization of Services) Act No, VIII of 1989 was passed by the Provincial Assembly but somehow or the other, its benefit was not extended to the petitioners.
2. When the petitioners despite several representations to the high-ups, in this behalf, failed to achieve the desired objective, they filed the instant writ petitions bearing Nos.1084/96, 82/97 and 1338/98. As a common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions, they are disposed of by this single judgment.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that though the appointment of the petitioners was contractual nonetheless their selection was made on regular basis after complying with all the codal formalities thus their case is by no means distinguishable from that of other ad hoc appointees whose services have been regularized by the Act mentioned above, as such they cannot be treated in a manner which is not only different but discriminatory as well on the face of it and therefore, their services be directed to be regularized. The learned counsel by referring to the summary proposing amendments in the law and the views expressed by the Secretary Law declining to endorse it on the strength of the judgment rendered in the case of Musa Wazir v. N.- W.F.P. Public Service Commission (1993 SCM R 1124), contended that the Secretary failed to appreciate the ratio of that case and thus wrongly applied it to the case in hand without there being any relevance thereto. At last the learned counsel argued that the petitioners who have spent best of their life and talent in the Department deserve regularization even on equitable grounds.
4. As against that Mr. Imtiaz Ali, the learned Addl. Advocate General contended that the case of the petitioners is not similar to that of ad hoc appointees regularized under the Act, firstly because none of them was appointed, under section 5 of the Act I of 1988 against a post as defined in the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act I of 1988 or post in a Government Department as defined under section 2(b) & (c) of the N.-W.F.P. Act VIII of 1989, secondly because none of them was paid from the Provincial exchequer and thirdly because the project they were appointed for is not only out of existence but its employees also are now in surplus poll.
5. We have gone through the record and weighed with attention the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. Before we discus and appreciate the case canvassed at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties, it is worthwhile to reproduce the relevant definitions of the expressions post and the Government Department which read as under: "2. Definitions:---In this Act unless the context otherwise requires:-- (a)
(b) "Government Department" means any Department constituted under Rule 3 of the Government of the North-West Frontier Province Rules of Business, 1985, and does not include any section of a Department or an organization which is federally funded; (c)- "post" means a post in any Government Department;
6. Appraisal of the above mentioned definition will reveal that the Legislature in its wisdom has assigned restricted meanings to the expression Government Department and post. A Government Department which according to Rule 3 of the Government of N.-W.F.P. Rules of Business, 1985 does not find mention in its column No,2 Schedule 1 cannot be construed as Department. No doubt the Local Government and Rural Development Department is a Department within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act No,VIII of 1989 but its section, as is evident from its bare reading is certainly excluded therefrom as the project wherefor the appointments of the petitioners were made on contract basis was admittedly a Cell or to use the statutory parlance, a section of and not a Department itself. The very effort of the petitioners in collaboration with the Department to get the law suitably amended so to absorb them in the Department amply rather eminently indicates that the case of the petitioners was not covered by the umbrella of the Act and was in fact, outside its scope, therefore, they could not have claimed their absorption in the Department or asked for the regularization of their services under any of the enactments referred to above. The case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No,82 of 1997 also goes outside the purview of section 2(b) of the Act as admittedly the Department she is employed in is federally funded. The Court is, but helpless to issue any of the writs asked for because the case of the petitioners as canvassed at the bar does not attract or fulfil any of the requirements of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as their case is not covered by any of the provisions of the Acts referred to above, hence their case cannot be held to be similar to that of the ad hoc appointees regularized under the Act for the reasons, befittingly enumerated by the learned Additional Advocate General, more so when the very project they were appointed for is out of existence and its employees are now in a surplus pool.
7. The Government could have, if it had so desired, amended the law in order to regularise the services of the petitioners as there was nothing in the dictum laid down in the case of Musa Wazir supra to restrain or prohibit such amendment. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment was that the practice in the matter of recruitment and promotion etc. Should be such as could foster competence, discipline and efficiency in the public service and that these objectives should not only be advanced but to be manifestly seen to be advanced.
8. When the case of the petitioners is neither covered by the Act No,VIII of 1989 nor any other law in the field requiring regularization of their services nor it can be held to be at par with the ad hoc employees regularised thereunder, we do not think that a case for the issuance of a writ within the terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 or even on equitable considerations is made out.
9. For the reasons discussed above, these writ petitions being without merit are dismissed.