' CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, J.--- The judgments of the High Court dated 22-12-2009 and 29-12- 2009 have been assailed in both the above titled petitions for leave to appeal. As identical points are involved, therefore, both the petitions are decided through this single order.
2. Petitioners were initially appointed temporarily on contract basis as Primary Teachers on different dates subject to advertisement of vacancies and confirmation by the respective Selection Committees. Their period of contract was extended from time to time. On the basis of a general directive of Prime Minister they sought permanent induction/confirmation through writ petitions before the High Court. The writ petitions remained fruitless, which resulted into filing of instant petitions for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Janjua, the learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that although the petitioners were initially appointed on contract basis, however, later on through several orders the period of their contract was extended and they have been retained in service without any break. Thus a vested right has accrued in their favour. The learned counsel also argued that in identical situation the services of some other persons, who were appointed on contract basis, have been regularized by the competent authority. He placed reliance on some unreported judgments of the High Court and mainly on a reported case of this Court titled Muhammad Bilal Khan v. Azad Government and others 2009 SCR 493.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I have minutely perused the record. The basic orders, on the strength of which the petitioners claim regularization in service, are purely of a temporary nature and all the subsequent orders are also of temporary nature. Moreover., in all these orders a condition has been categorically imposed that the vacancies will be advertised and permanent induction will be made by the concerned Selection Committees according to selection on merit. The petitioners have accepted the conditions imposed in these orders, therefore, now they cannot turn round and take a different stand. So far the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the same are not applicable to this case due to its peculiar facts. Even otherwise principle of law enunciated in a judgment is followed, not the facts or orders passed in peculiar circumstances of a case. A wrong cannot justify another wrong. If at all any other person's service was regularized against law, it is of no help to petitioners and in the instant case the learned Chief Justice of High Court has rightly issued direction for cancellation of all such illegal orders. As the case referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners titled Muhammad Bilal Khan v. Azad Government and others 2009 SCR 493 is concerned, it is distinguishable from the case in hand. In that case the incumbent was appointed on ad hoc basis on 11-8-1994 and on the same date the vacancy was requisitioned to Public Service Commission for selection on merit. Without any fault on the part-of incumbent, the concerned public functionaries failed to perform their functions according to law, therefore, it was held that no person could be penalized for failure of public functionary to perform his duty. Thus the principle enunciated in the above referred case is not helpful to the petitioners in presence of different facts and circumstances of the cases.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners stressed on the point that the directive issued by the Prime Minister is to be implemented because it is issued by a competent authority. So far as the directive of Prime Minister is concerned, any such directive can only be implemented by the Courts of law if it is issued according to spirit of law and under the powers vested by law. The directives of Prime Minister, which are inconsistent with law, cannot be implemented by Courts of law. This view is fortified by the following case law.
' In Syed Sharif Hussain Bukhari v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and others PLD 1983 (AJ&K) 10 it was observed as under:-- " If an order issued by the Government which affects the right of a citizen adversely, is not shown to have been made in pursuance of some statutory provisions, that order, being without any lawful authority, is to be struck down, especially when it offends against any constitutional provisions."
' In Muhammad Bhai and another v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan Islamabad and another PLD 1980 Kar. 166 it was observed as under:-- ' Besides any policy decision contrary to the Remission Rules which have been framed under the provisions of the statute cannot be held to have been amended by an inconsistent policy decision."
' In Maj. Muhammad Aftab Ahmad v. AJ&K Government and others 1992 SCR 307 it was held as under:-- "Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the Prime Minister had made the order for the appointment of the appellant to the post of Superintendent of Police still it cannot be given effect to or enforced by way of issuing writ directing the respondent to issue the order of his appointment to the said post as it is a settled law that the writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to direct a person to give effect to an unlawful order of any authority even though it is competent authority to pass such an order in a lawful manner. Since, as said earlier, the appointment of the appellant could not be made to the post of Superintendent of Police under the rules the orders of the 'Prime Minister claimed by the appellant to be the orders of his appointment to the said post being violative of the relevant rules were unlawful and consequently were not enforceable by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction which is discretionary in nature and its exercise is always refused where the ends of justice and facts of the case do not justify and call for to do so."
6. The AJ&K Civil Servants Act, 1976 and the AJ&K Civil Servants (Terms and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1977 are statutory laws under which the prescribed mode is given for appointments of civil servants against different posts. Any appointment in violation of prescribed mode is illegal and even such appointments cannot be protected by the Legislative Assembly. In this regard reliance can be placed on a case reported as AJ&K Government and others v. Muhammad Yunus Tahir and others 1994 CLC 2339 and so many other judgments of this Court.
7. It will not be out of place to mention here that a Circular was issued on 9-5-2009, whereby all such orders, like in the case in hand, were processed for cancellation. The aforesaid Circular reads as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' This Circular lucidly clarifies the prevailing malpractice relating to appointments in violation of rules. This Circular appears to be consistent with law and the same should be carried out for eradication of malpractices.
8. In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in ID these petitions, the same stand dismissed.