' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Government of N.-W.F.P. Seek leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 3-7-2003 whereby Mr. Justice Talaat Qayyum Qureshi, Honourable Judge Peshawar High Court while writing on behalf of the Division Bench, had accepted numerous writ petitions filed by the respondents, declaring their appointment on 'contract basis' as void and ineffective.
2. Various posts of Lecturers (BPS-17), Additional Public Prosecutors (BPS-17), Research Officer/Assistant Directors (BPS-17), Inspectors (BPS-17), Librarians and Directors Physical Education (BPS-16) and Assistant (BPS-11), under rule 10 (a)(b) of, N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1989, categorized as initial appointments, fell within the purview of the Public Service Commission. Accordingly, various advertisements for such recruitments were published in different 'Dailies' of N.-W,.F.P. The respondents of the petitions in hand applied for the posts concerned. They cleared the examination and interview where after they were recommended by the Commission for appointment against the posts they applied for.
3. To their utter surprise, when they received the appointment letters, such appointment was unilaterally declared to be on contract bases instead of being on 'regular basis'. All of them challenged such appointments through numerous writ petitions, which were accepted and hence the N.-W.F.P. Government resorted to this Court, seeking leave to appeal,
4. It is a fact that all the posts aforesaid fell within the purview of the Commission and hence, as per rule 10 of N -W.F.P. Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, such initial appointments were to be made on the basis of examination or test to be conducted by the Commission. Had the appointments been intended to be otherwise than on 'regular basis', the manner of recruitment could differently be determined by the Government under rule 10(b) of Rules of 1989, mentioned above. Such process of recruitment was completed in the year 1999/2000 but subsequently the Government, on the basis of a meeting of Provincial Cabinet held on 1-7-2001, decided to make all fresh recruitments on 'contract basis' and not on 'regular basis'. This is not at all permissible because any policy so made was bound to take effect prospectively and not retrospectively.
5. We have gone through the entire record which was scanned in the light of exhaustive and elaborate judgment impugned before us, wherein, the learned High Court had given not one but nine sound reasons to nullify the act of the Government. The reasons are to the effect; firstly, that the decision taken in the Cabinet meeting was violative of the business rules, in that, the meeting was held for approval of various budgetary measures whereas the appointments of the candidates in question became directly affected without the issue being on agenda. Secondly, the policy could not be given retrospective effect, especially when a valuable right had accrued to the respondents who had competed for appointments on 'regular basis'.
6. Thirdly, the respondents never entered into competition under section 2(b)(ii) of N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act 1973, for employment on contract. They in fact competed for appointment on 'regular basis', the terms and conditions whereof altogether differ from those on 'contract basis'. Thus the policy in question had taken them by surprise, which was not bona fide. Fourthly, no terms and conditions of the contract had been entered into by mutual agreement between the parties nor any such terms were given in the advertisement.
7. Fifthly, rule 4 of N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1983 categorically prescribed that the Commission shall not conduct test for initial recruitment to posts, which are filled on 'contract basis' for a specified period. Appointments on 'regular basis' are explained in the said rule to be clearly different from those on 'ad hoc basis', on 'contract or temporary basis' or for a specified period. Sixthly, the impugned notifications were against the principle of promissory estoppels and seventhly, violative of the doctrine of locus penitential.
8. Eighthly, the method of initial appointment is comprehensively given in the Civil Servants Act 1973 and the rules framed there under. The recruitments in hand were also done in accordance therewith but without changing the law on the subject, a sudden volte-face has been taken by the Government to the extreme detriment of the citizens concerned. Ninthly, being the last but not the least is the act of discrimination whereby numerous candidates having come through the same process were appointed on regular bases while the respondents were not. Today, learned counsel for the respondents/caveators has produced a long list of appointments indicating a number of 20 to 21 candidates who were appointed on regular basis' after the so-called policy decision of 1-7- 2001 but the respondents being similarly placed and similarly recommended by the Commission were totally ignored without any feeling of guilt. Six of such notifications have already been mentioned at page 15 of the impugned judgment.
9. Keeping all these reasons in mind we are of the view that nothing legal or factual escaped the notice of the High Court, elaborately discussed in its judgment. There being no merit in the petitions, those are hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.