Through this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner prays as under:-- "In the light of foregoing submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that writ petition may kindly be accepted and 'the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the petitioner against the post of Deputy Director Repair & Maintenance (BPS-18) according to policy of Government of the Punjab.
Any other relief, which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, be also granted."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents invited applications for the various posts including Deputy Director (Repair & Maintenance) (BS-18) through publication in the newspaper; that basic qualification for the post of Deputy Director (Repair & Maintenance) was B.Sc. Engineering (Mechanical or Civil); that the petitioner being eligible applied for the said post and after going through different parlays he was appointed on the said post initially on contract bas basis for a period of five years vide appointment letter dated 15.03.2010; that the Government of the Punjab promulgated a policy for regularization of contractual employees and the respondents also regularized the services of different employees, who are even junior to the petitioner and in this regard a notification dated 16.07.2010 has been issued; that the Respondent No, 2 has not regularized the services of the petitioner without any rhyme or reason: that case of the petitioner is at par to those employees whose services have been regularized. Alleges discrimination.
3. Conversely, learned Law Officer on behalf of the respondents submits that the service of the petitioner was not regularized due to the fact that during the verification process some discrepancy was found in the transcript of 2nd year certificate of the petitioner and the University authorities reported that the said certificate of the petitioner is bogus and self fabricated; that the petitioner maneuvered his appointment on the basis of bogus and self fabricated certificate which is a clear misconduct; that despite this fact the petitioner was informed that if his performance is found satisfactory, his case for regularization shall be forwarded to the concerned forum; that the performance of the petitioner was not upto the desired level and in this regard different warning letters were issued to the petitioner; that during the visit of the Director General it was found that the office of the petitioner was in poor condition, map was not properly overlaid and charpoy was lying in the office which shows level of interest of the petitioner in work and office management.
4. In rebuttal learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the performance of the petitioner during whole service career was excellent which is apparent from the fact that not only Honorarium was awarded to the petitioner by the department but also after the retirement of Chief Engineer charge of the said post was handed over to the petitioner; that there is no criteria such as satisfactory performance for regularization of service of contract employees; that according to the advertisement only requirement for the post was B.Sc. Engineering (Mechanical or Civil) and the degree of the petitioner was duly verified by the HEC that the petitioner applied for the post on the basis of his degree not on the basis of transcripts; that if there was some discrepancy in the transcript that was the fault of the University and the petitioner cannot be penalized on the said basis that neither any site office was constructed nor office furniture was provided to the petitioner and the petitioner is performing his duties in the room of the contractor; that issuance of such like warning shows mala fide on the part of the respondents.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsels and perused the record.
6. The petitioner was denied regularization of service on the followings grounds:--
(i) Transcript of 2nd year of B.Sc. Engineering degree of the petitioner was found bogus and self- fabricated.
(ii) Performance of the petitioner during the career was not satisfactory and different kind of warnings have been issued to the petitioner.
7. First of all I would like to dilate upon the issue of allegedly self -fabricated transcript of 2nd year of the degree of B.Sc. Engineering of the petitioner. Basic qualification for the post of Deputy Director (Repair & Maintenance) as laid down in the advertisement was B.Sc, Engineering (Mechanical or Civil) and it is an admitted fact that the said degree of the petitioner is genuine.
Moreover, though there was some discrepancy in the 2nd year transcript of the petitioner yet it is not a disputed fact that even according to the corrected transcript the petitioner had passed all the subjects, therefore, it is beyond comprehension that the petitioner knowingly produced a forged and fabricated transcript in particular when this transcript did not have any value in the recruitment process. Furthermore, the department did not take any disciplinary action against the petitioner on the basis of alleged self- fabricated transcript and the petitioner continued to serve but when the petitioner approached this Court for legitimate right of being ,considered for regularization of service the department took a somersault and came up with the stance that the alleged self -fabricated transcript is, a hurdle in regularization of service of the petitioner. This Court cannot overlook the self -contradictory stance taken and zigzag path followed by the departmental authorities. If the petitioner can continue his service on the basis of alleged self - fabricated transcript on contract basis then there should be no hurdle for regularization of the service of the petitioner on the basis of the same transcript.
8. So far as the performance of the petitioner during his career is concerned, undisputedly not only after the retirement of the Chief Engineer charge of the said post was handed over to the petitioner in May, 2011 but was also given authority to exercise the special powers of Chief Engineer and process/pay running bills of the Contractor and Consultants. By handing over such important and crucial tasks the departmental authorities posed faith in the petitioner's abilities to discharge these obligations. Furthermore, due to the excellent performance the department also awarded honorarium to the petitioner during the financial year 2010-2011 which is a proof of his dedication towards the department. Nothing adverse on the service career could be pointed out by the learned Law Officer during the course of arguments and the warning letter dated 02.02.2012 issued to the petitioner is nothing but a crude attempt to malign the petitioner as an inefficient and incapable office, however, only succeeds in proving math fides on the part of the respondents for more then one reason. The warning was issued to the petitioner on the grounds that during the visit by the Director General the office of the petitioner was in very poor condition, maps were not properly overlaid and a charpoy was lying in the office which reflects his level of interest in the work. In response to this, the petitioner present in the Court submits that neither any office was available on the site nor any staff or office furniture was provided to him and he is running the office in the temporary constructed room of the contractor. The learned Law Officer on behalf of the department present in the Court was unable to controvert this stance of the petitioner.
Moreover, the petitioner has filed instant Constitutional petition on 12.01.2012, whereas, the warning letter was issued to him on 02.02.2012 which prima facie leads the Court to the conclusion that the respondents are leaving no stone unturned to come up with reasons to show to the Court that the petitioner does not deserve regularization of service on the basis of poor performance.
9. It is also an admitted fact that the colleagues of the petitioner who are even juniors to the petitioner have been regularized and no criteria of having satisfactory performance was laid down before regularizing their services which is against the principle of equality. In Case reported as Suleman Daud Vs. Lahore Development Authority; through Director General (2008 CLD 850) it has been laid down as under: "The concept of equality is indeed negation of arbitrariness. Every power has its extend and legal limits. The exercise of such power should be based on fairness, and reasonableness. Persons in similar circumstances should have similar treatment, unless the differentiation is based upon a valid classification, which should not have the taint of arbitrariness that is the hallmark of any ideal dispensation of justice."
10.Act of the respondents is also violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as well as dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as Mehar Muhammad Nawaz, EX-OG-.I Small Business Finance Corporation Multan Vs. Managing Director, Small Business Finance Corporation and 2 others (PLJ 2009 SC 175) wherein it has been held as follows:-- "Equal treatment of all similarly situated is the basic principle on which rests justice under the law. If even handed justice is not administered, it can have many adverse frustration in the social set-up.
There can be no denial that social justice is an objective and enshrined in our Constitution."
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition stands accepted. Act of the respondents for not regularizing the service of the petitioner is declared malafide, illegal and discriminatory. Respondents are directed to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date when his colleagues were regularized within 30 days from the date hereof.