1. SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, C.J.--- In the Department of Livestock and Dairy Development, Government of Punjab, the Departmental Selection/Recruitment Committee recommended appointment of certain persons on contract basis for a period of two years. Their posts fall in BS-1 to BS-4 and appointment orders were accordingly issued to them on 25-4-2006. They joined duty and were holding their respective posts. It was, however, on 26-6-2006 when Secretary, Livestock Government of the Punjab "annulled with immediate effect all the recommendations made by any Provincial/ District Recruitment Committee or offer of appointment issued by any Appointing Authority for initial appointment against any post in L&DD Department under Recruitment Policy, 2005 phase-II". It was mentioned therein that "This order shall specifically apply to the posts in BS- 1-4 for which no merits/criteria were followed". Pursuant to such a general directive, the appointees were informed that their appointment orders stand annulled. The petitioners in this petition and other petitioners, who were affected thereby, assailed the orders inter alia on the ground that their appointment was made by following the proper procedure and criteria and that orders of appointment, which had been given effect to, could not be cancelled without any notice or hearing them nor such a general order could be passed affecting so many employees without considering their individual cases. Since this common controversy arises in all these petitions, such as Writ Petition No,8726 of 2006, Writ Petition No,8728 of 2006, Writ Petition No,8798 of 2006, Writ Petition No,9316 of 2006, Writ Petition No,10949 of 2006, Writ Petition No,11892 of 2006, Writ Petition No,2168 of 2007 and Writ Petition No,3142 of 2007, these will stand disposed of by means of this order.
2. In the report and parawise comments received from the respondent-Department, the appointment of the petitioners has not been disputed. It has, however, been pleaded that the criteria laid down in the Recruitment Policy had not been followed by the Recruitment Committee. It has not been denied that they were not issued any notice or heard before annulling their appointments.
3. These petitions came up for hearing before different learned Benches and operation of the impugned orders were suspended. During the course of proceedings today, it has been noted that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis for a specific period of two years whose orders of appointment were made in the month of April, 2006 (on different dates). Though there is divergence of view in the matter by the learned Benches of this Court, as by means of order dated 14-12-2006 some petitions (Writ Petition No,1961 of 2006/BWP, Writ Petition No,1962 of 2006/BWP, Writ Petition No,1963 of 2006/BWP and Writ Petition No,1964 of 2006/BWP) were accepted by the Bahawalpur Bench of this Court and Writ Petition No,9174 of 2006 was dismissed by a learned Bench at the principal seat, yet the issue as to which view should be followed as correct one, need not be dilated upon as the term of appointment of the petitioners, who have continued to perform their duties during this period, is to expire within this month. Their appointment period cannot go beyond the one mentioned in the appointment order itself. Even this Court would not be in a position to extend the same as the stream cannot rise higher than its source. No useful purpose would, thus, be served in keeping these petitions pending or passing any other order except that it will be for the relevant department to take decision as to their continuing in service beyond the contractual period of their appointment.
4. The petitions are disposed of accordingly.