' Through this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the vires of letter dated 13-8-2003 issued by respondent No.3, Secretary Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore, whereby the petitioner was informed that upon re-examination of her application, it was found that she did not qualify to be interviewed for the reason that her services had not been terminated on 30-6-2000 as notified by the Education Department nor she was a petitioner before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in any one of the Civil Petitions decided on 25-9-2002, hence her interview was cancelled.
2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner is M.A. In Islamiat. She was offered the post of Lecturer in Islamiat on ad hoc basis by the Directorate of Education (Colleges) Multan Division, Multan, vide memo. No.669/Admn-I dated 7-2-1996. She accepted the offer and joined the Government Degree College for Women Mailsi as Lecturer in Islamiat as an ad hoc appointee and started to perform her duties. Her services were extended from 1-7-1999 to 30-6-2000 (vide order No.S.O. CE-III) 8-21/97 dated 23-6-1999 issued by the Secretary Higher Education, Govt. Of Punjab, Education Department, Lahore. She remained at the disposal of defunct Directorate of Education (Colleges), Multan Division, Multan for the period from 1-1-2000 to 30-6-2000 and she was adjusted at Govt. College for Women, Mailsi for the period from 1-1-2000 to 31-5-2000 for the purpose of drawal of salaries and regularization of service. Her period from 1-6-2000 to 30-6-2000 remained unadjusted and she has not been paid the salary of these months in spite of the work done. Her services were automatically terminated on 30-6-2000. Certain Lecturers and Subject Specialists who were appointed on ad hoc basis filed appeals in the Punjab Service Tribunal for the regularization of their services which were not accepted and aggrieved by the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal, 73 Civil Petitions were filed in the Honourable Suprcme Court of Pakistan, the Apex Court vide judgment dated 25-9-2002 directed the Punjab Public Service Commission to consider their cases for regularization. After the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court the Punjab Public Service Commission invited applications vide advertisement No.4 of 2003 from the ad hoc Lecturers and Subject Specialists in the light of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 25-9-2002 for regularization of their services: Later on, the Punjab Public Service Commission gave another Advertisement which was published in Daily Nawa-e-Waqt Multan dated 8-6-2003 vide which a partial modification of Advertisement No.4 of 2003 \Nils made in the manner that ex-ad hoc Lecturers and ex-ad hoc Subject Specialists, both male and female, whose terms of appointment expired on 30-6-2000 and were terminated vide letter dated 5-8-2000 but were not petitioners before the Honourable Supreme Court were also eligible to apply to the Punjab Public Service Commission for regularization of their services. In compliance of the Advertisement of partial modification, the petitioner applied for the regularization of her services and consequently she was called for interview. The petitioner appeared before the Punjab Public Service Commission and was duly interviewed by the Commission. On 13-8-2003, a rejection letter was sent to her on two counts; firstly, that the petitioner's service was not terminated on 30-6-2000 and secondly her application was not competent as she was not a party before the Honourable Supreme Court. Hence this writ petition.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 Punjab Public Service Commission issued a partial modification of Advertisement No.4 of 2003 which was published in Daily Nawa-e-Waqt, Multan, dated 8-6-2003, wherein it is clearly laid down that even the ad hoc appointees as Lecturers and Subject Specialists can also apply to the Punjab Public Service Commission for the regularization of their services even though they were not parties as petitioners in any of the Civil petitions before the Honourable Supreme Court and for this reason the objection of the respondent-Commission for rejecting the interview is against their own verdict published in Daily Nawa-e-Waqt Multan dated 8-6-2003 and is also without lawful authority and therefore, she is entitled for the declaration of result of the interview taken by her. On this similar point, he has referred a judgment passed in W.P. No.3430 of 2003 by my learned brother Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J. On 22-10-2004, whereby he allowed the writ petition of Muhammad Akram with a direction to the respondent to consider his case for regularization on its own merits and declare his result accordingly and submitted that the case of the petitioner is absolutely identical to that of Muhammad Akram petitioner in W.P. No.3430/03.
4. The learned A.A.-G. As well as the Deputy Director Legal PPSC has supported the impugned rejection letter dated 13-8-2003 and also the comments submitted by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The learned A.A.-G. Has referred to two judgments, one passed in W.P. No.9896/03 and the second passed in W.P. Nos.12084/03, 12214/03 and 20346/04, on 11-7-2003 and 20-12-2004 respectively by my learned brother Syed Jamshed Ali, J., whereby the writ petitions were dismissed on the ground that the petitioners were not parties before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. He further submitted that as the petitioner in this writ petition was not a party before the Honourable Supreme Court, this petition may be dismissed.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner was an ad hoc Lecturer and remained in service from 1996 to 2000.
Thereafter her services were expired on 30-6-2000 and were terminated. The respondent invited applications vide advertisement No. 4/03 from the ad hoc Lecturers and Subject Specialists in the light of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 25-9-2002 for regularization of .'their services. Advertisement No.4/03 was later on partially modified by another advertisement which was published in Daily Nawa-e-Waqt Multan dated 8-6-2003, wherein it was stated that ex-ad hoc Lecturers and ex-ad hoc Subject Specialists, both male and female, whose terms of appointment expired on 30-6-2000 and were terminated vide letter dated 5-8-2000 but were not petitioners before the Honourable Supreme Court were also eligible to apply to the Punjab Public Service Commission for regularization of their services. In compliance of the advertisement of partial modification, the petitioner applied for the regularization of her services and consequently, she was called for interview and she appeared before the Commission and was duly interviewed. But on 13- 9-2003 a rejection letter was sent to her on two counts; firstly, that the petitioner's services were not terminated on 30-6-2000 and secondly her application was not competent as she was not a party before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.
6. The objection of the respondent that the petitioner was not a party before the Honourable Supreme Court is not to be taken into consideration keeping in view the corrigendum issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission appearing in Daily Nawa-e-Waqt dated 8-6-2003 according to which all ad hoc Lecturers and ad hoc Subject Specialists were entitled for regularization, even if, they were not a party before the Honourable Supreme Court, as its perusal shows that the ad hoc appointees as Lecturers and Subject Specialists could also apply to the Punjab Public Service Commission for the regularization of their services even though they were not parties as petitioners in any one of the Civil Petitions before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. In support of this proposition, reliance is placed upon a judgment dated 22-10-2004 passed in W.P. No.3430/03 by my learned brother Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J. Whereby the writ petition of Muhammad Akram was allowed.
7. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned A.A.-G passed in W.P. Nos.9896/03 and 12084/03, 12214/03 and 20346/04 on 11-7-2003 and 20-12-2004 respectively by my learned brother Syed Jamshed Ali J. Are concerned, suffice it to say that where services of the petitioners were terminated and there was no such advertisement to the effect that ad hoc appointees as Lecturers and Subject Specialists who were not parties before the Honourable Supreme Court could also apply to the Commission but in the present case, services of the petitioner were not terminated and there was an advertisement to the effect that the ad hoc appointees as Lecturers and Subject Specialists who were not parties before the Honourable Supreme Court could also apply to the Punjab Public Service Commission. Therefore, these judgments are not applicable to this case.
8. In view of the circumstances of the case, it is held that case of the petitioner is absolutely identical to that of Muhammad Akram petitioner in W.P No.3430/03 which was accepted by this Court vide judgment dated 22-10-2004, thus she cannot be treated otherwise. The result of the above discussion is that the writ petition is allowed. The case of the petitioner shall be considered for regularization on its own merits and her result shall be declared accordingly.