' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.--- Through this judgment it is proposed to adjudicate upon W.Ps.Nos.9947 of 2010(Multan), 4824 of 2010(BWP), 1179 of 2008(BWP), 1982 of 2008(BWP), 21028 of 2010, 21029 of 2010, 21030 of 2010, 22049 of 2010 and 22690 of 2010 involving common questions of law and fact.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis at hand are that the petitioners in each of the above mentioned petitions were initially appointed on contract basis as Public Prosecutors for the various Anti-Terrorism Courts in the Province of Punjab. Such appointments were for a initial period of one year. Subsequently, vide notification dated 9th September, 2004 the period of appointment of the petitioners was extended till the arrival of the new selectees through the Punjab Public Service Commission upon the promulgation of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service Act, 2004.
Vide notification dated 16th September, 2010, the services of the petitioners were dispensed with immediate effect and they were held to be entitled to one month's pay. Vide another notification also dated 16th September, 2010, various Deputy District Public Prosecutors were posted in their stead as Prosecutors under section 18 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at the various Anti-Terrorism Courts in the Province of Punjab. The instant constitutional petitions have been filed to call in question the legality and validity of the aforesaid notifications.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners were appointed and entitled to remain in office till the arrival of the selectees by the Punjab Public Service Commission and no Special Public Prosecutor for Anti-Terrorism Courts in the Punjab has been selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission. It is the case of the petitioners that such posts were never advertised, hence the notifications are invalid and liable to be set aside.
4. Pursuant to orders of this Court, detailed report and parawise comments have been filed by the respondents. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has vehemently contended that pursuant to the promulgation of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers)
Act, 2006 and as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment reported as Abid lqbal Hafiz and others v. Secretary, Public Prosecution Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others (PLD 2010 SC 841), the process for appointment of Prosecutors has been completed, who are entitled to appear before the all courts including Special Courts like Anti- Terrorism Courts in question. Consequently, upon the completion of the said process of initial recruitment on permanent basis, the condition mentioned in the notification of extension of the petitioners stands fulfilled, especially as such Prosecutors as defined by section 2(1) of the Act, 2006, have been notified under section 18 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to prosecute cases in the courts to which the petitioners had been appointed. It is further contended that the appointment of the petitioners was governed by a contract policy of the Government of Punjab in terms whereof on the one hand there was a limit to the tenure of appointments thereunder, which has since lapsed, while on the other hand, such contracts were liable to termination simplicitor one month's notice as has been done in the instant case vide the impugned notification, hence the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard. Record perused. The Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, was promulgated on 8th April, 2006. Section 2(1) defines "Prosecutor", which include Prosecutor-General, Additional Prosecutor-General, Deputy Prosecutor-General, District Public Prosecutor, Deputy District Public Prosecutor, Assistant District Public Prosecutor and a Public Prosecutor appointed under this Act. By virtue of section 9(1) of the Act 2006, the "Prosecutors" are responsible to conduct prosecution on behalf of the Government of Punjab and by virtue of subsection (2) thereof, such work is distributed among the "Prosecutors" in respect of various courts including Special Courts. The aforesaid makes it clear and obvious that the prosecution' in a Special Court including the Anti-Terrorism Court is to be conducted by a "Prosecutor" as defined in the said Act.
6. Apparently, the appointments were made by the Government of Punjab on various posts as contemplated by the Act, 2006, in respect whereof serious disputes arose, which were adjudicated upon by a Full Bench of this Court in the cases reported as Muhammad Saleem and 12 others v.
Secretary Prosecution, Government of Punjab, Lahore and another (2010 PLC (C.S.) 1) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abid lqbal Hafiz and others v. Secretary, Public Prosecution Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore (PLD 2010 SC 841), whereby directions were issued for appointment under the Act 2006 by the Punjab Public Service Commission. Admittedly, the said process has been completed and recruitment effected on a permanent basis, as a consequence whereof ex facie the condition mentioned in the notification dated 9th of September, 2004 extending the period for appointment of the petitioners appears to have been fulfilled, thereby disentitling the petitioners from continuing as Prosecutors.
7. Be that as it may, there is another aspect of the matter. The petitioners were admittedly appointed on contract basis and are governed by a Contract Appointment Policy of the Government of. Punjab of 2004. Their initial appointment was subject to termination of one month's notice, as is mentioned in their notifications of appointments. Clause (XII)(iii) clearly states that the service of the contract employee is liable to termination on one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof without assigning any reason. The impugned notification dated 16th September, 2010 is a termination simpliciter and states that the petitioners are entitled to one month's pay. The said notification is in consonance with the Contract Appointment Policy and the term of the initial appointment of the petitioners, therefore, no exception can be taken thereto.
8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the impugned notifications were issued in accordance with law and the contract policy. There is no illegality therein warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. These petitions are without .Any merit and are dismissed accordingly.