' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.--- Through this single judgment I intend to dispose of the instant writ petition (W.P. No,2337 of 2011/BWP) as well as Criminal Originals Nos.305 and 405 of 2011 filed in it by the petitioners, and Writ Petitions Nos.3599 of 2011/BWP, 3600 of 2011/BWP, 4731 of 2011 and 5528 of 2011/BWP involving same question of law and facts.
2. Precise facts leading to these petitions are that Dr. Lal Hussain Akhtar and other petitioners filed Writ Petition No,1775 .Of 2011 against the Chief Secretary etc. Seeking declaration to .The effect that regularization of the contract employees of Agriculture Department in BS-18, BS-18 plus special pay of Rs,165 is illegal and without lawful authority being violativeto the terms and conditions of their appointment. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 5-4-2011 of this court with the following direction:--- "Send a copy of this writ petition along with its annexures to the respondent No,2 who shall treat the same as representation of the petitioners and thereafter decide the same strictly in accordance with law within one month after providing them an opportunity of personal hearing. Meanwhile status quo shall be maintained Disposed of."
3. Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department (respondent No,2) after going through the representation i,e, writ petition and the Contract Appointment Policy circulated vide letter dated 29-12-2004 and S&GAD Circular letters and providing personal hearing to the petitioners vide order dated 21-4-2011 rejected the representation being devoid of merit under the law/rules.
4. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 21-4-2011 the petitioners preferred this Writ Petition No,2337 of 2011 calling in question the vires of the impugned order as illegal, against the rules and Policy of the Government, ineffective against their rights and liable to set aside.
5. The respondents have submitted their parawise comments.
6. I have given patient hearing to the counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
7. ' After going through the petitioner's plea in the writ petitions as well as parawise comments submitted by the respondents it reveals that pursuant to the Policy of the Government of, Punjab, 2004 for appointment on contract basis, Agriculture Department (Research Wing), Government of the Punjab filled in various posts of Assistant Research Officers/Agricultural Officers etc. (BS-17), post of Assistant Entomologist etc. (BS-18) and post of Botanist etc. (BS-18 plus Rs,165 special pay) on contract basis under the initial recruitment quota provided in . Punjab Agriculture Department (Research Wing) Service Rules, 1980 which reads below:- -- "(a) Posts in BS-17 100% by initial recruitment.
(b) Assistant Specialists (BS-18)
20 % by initial recruitment and 80% by promotion from amongst the members of the feeding cadre with two years service.
(c) Specialist (BS-18 +Rs,165 SP)
25% by initial recruitment and 75% by promotion from amongst the members of the feeding cadre who have five years service as such."
' Later on a Committee was constituted on 18-1-2010 to design the scope of regularization of officers in BS-16 and above on the recommendation whereof Government of the Punjab vide Notification dated 10-11-2010 issued directions for regularization of contract appointments in BS-16.
Dr. Lal Hussain and other petitioners being members of the feeding cadre apprehending some clog in the way of their promotion had preferred Writ Petition No,1775 of 2011. It is noteworthy that post of Assistant Specialist and Specialist falling under initial recruitment quota as per service rules were advertised for recruitment on contract basis according to the Contract Appointment Policy, 2004 on open merit basis. The officers working on regular basis were also held eligible for appointment against advertised posts. In the above process some officers working on regular basis in the Agriculture Department applied for recruitment against the advertised vacancies on contract basis and were selected who were legitimately expecting their regularization in due course as per Policy of the Government. Perhaps the petitioners serving in BS-17 as regular employees could not digest the regularization of the contract employees in Grade-18 although they were eligible for promotion against higher post of their own cadre on their turn. In the above state of affairs the petitioners lodged the above sited writ petitions seeking direction of this Court to stop the process of regularization of service of the contract employees.
8. Petitioners' main grievance to call in question the regularization of the contract employees is based on an ill-founded apprehension that the same may cause hindrance in their legitimate expectation of promotion. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners belong to the category of regular employees of the Feeding Cadre having a different classification as compared to the category of the contract employees recruited on the basis of quota of initial recruitment. Therefore petitioners have no case of discrimination prohibited under Article 25 of the Constitution and thus have failed to make out any valid grievance on account of regularization of the contract employees in accordance with Policy of the Government. Needless to mention that it is prerogative of the Government to formulate policy of recruitment in accordance with law and Constitution.
Since no legal or vested right of the petitioners is likely to be infringed due to regularization of the contract employees therefore, petitioners have no ground to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this court under Article 199. Besides it is also noteworthy that petitioners being civil servants if apprehend any threat to terms and conditions of their service are also facing bar under Article 212 of the Constitution.
9. As regards aforenoted Criminal Originals Nos.305 and 405 of 2011/BWP lodged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No,2337 of 2011/BWP, suffice it to say that this court had issued interim injunction vide order dated 5-5-2011 to the effect that no final order shall be passed qua the seniority of the petitioners till the next date of hearing. The injunctive order was later on extended on each date of hearing. Since process of regularization of the contract employees was no restrained by the injunctive order therefore measures taken and orders passed by the respondents with regard to regularization of the contract employees in accordance with law and policy of the Government do not amount to violation of the afore-noted injunctive order and thus there is no force in the Criminal Original petitions lodged by the petitioners.
10 For the foregoing reasons and discussion, the above noted writ petitions and criminal original petitions besides facing bar under Article 212 of the Constitution, are devoid of any merit and thus dismissed.