' NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI J.--- By this single order the above referred criminal originals are decided. Through the instant criminal originals, the applicants sought directions to respondents for issuances of notification of regularization of services of petitioners against regular posts at earliest opportunity otherwise initiate legal proceedings against the contemnors and maximum punishment be awarded to them on account of violating the orders dated 24-6-2008 passed by this Court.
2. As per facts narrated in these criminal originals, the writ petitions details where of as under:--- Sr.
No.Title of case W.P. No. 1 Nauman Masood Mirza v. Malik Attique-ur-Rehman and others 1292 of 2006 2 Irshad Ahmed and others v. The Secretary, Ministry of Education and others 2019 of 2006 3 Miss Nasreen Kousar and others v. Malik Attique-ur-Rehman and others2466 of 2007 4 Mrs.Bushra Shuja v. The Secretary Ministry of Education and others2466 of 2007 5 Muhammad Sajid v. Ch.Abdul Rauf and others 375 of 2008 6 Fakhar Islam v. The Secretary Ministry of Education and others 716 of 2008 7 Waqar Mehboob and others v. The Secretary Ministry of Education and others716 of 2008 8 Miss Huma Tallat and others v. Ch.Abdul Rauf and others 757 of 2008 9 Miss Shazia Arif v. Malik Attique-ur-Rehman 790 of 2008 10Miss Kaneez Fatima and others v. The Secretary, Ministry of Education and others832 of 2008 11 Mst. Sajida Bano and others v. The Secretary Ministry of Education and others 854 of 2008 12 Miss Tahira Jabeen and others v. Ch. Abdul Rauf and others 757 of 2008 ' The petitions were placed before the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, Islamabad High Court, which were decided vide order dated 24-6-2008 thereby the respondents were directed to consider the regularization of service of the petitioner against regular posts as earliest opportunity available.
3. The petitioners submitted through application made to respondent requesting for implementation of the order dated 24-6-2008 passed by Hon'ble Chief Justice, Islamabad High Court, Islamabad but no action so for initiated. Instead of regularization of service of petitioner, respondent No,1 advertised the posts of MTTs and TUGTs on which the petitioners were to be regularized in view of order of this Court dated 24-6-2008. Thus, it becomes clear-cut violation and disobedience of the order. It is also averted that the decision was not appealed/challenged before the Hon' ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as no notice thereof has been received. Despite lapse of period, the said decision of this Court has not been implemented as such, the act of respondents being contemptuous while advertising the posts in daily "Jang" dated 18-8-2008 have thus refused to implement the order, therefore, they are liable for prosecution and punishment.
4. The respondents responding issuance of notice by this Court submitted their reply by which they taken instance that in the month of November 2002, 560 teachers both male and female were recruited through walk in test interview as stop gape arrangements in view of the ban imposed on regular employment. Therefore, such employments were made on contract basis for one year later on extended time to time till 14-1-2006. Lastly such extension was granted for fourteen days only. It is contended that from first appointment to last extension it was clearly mentioned that contract might be terminated at any time, however, when the posts were advertised through national newspaper for recruitment of regular teachers of Matriculation, under graduate was published on 4-9-2005. In the advertisement it was clearly mentioned that the contract teachers of Federal Directorate of Education may also apply for those advertised posts. Consequently, the regular appointments were made and contracts further were not extended. Some of the contract employees preferred writ petition before Hon'ble Lahore, High Court, Rawalpindi Bench and some preferred appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal which to have been decided against the contract employees. Also it is averted that thrice posts were advertised and every time, the contract teachers were invited to apply for the posts advertised, consequently amongst those contract teachers there were in all 14 female and 5 male teachers were appointed on regular basis who applied responding the advertisement. It is also contended that the case of school teachers is different from model set up as presently all these contract teachers are no more in service w,e,f, 14- 1-2006.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the order passed by the Court is well speaking and by final judgment delivered by this Court, it is incumbent upon the respondents to implement the same as a consequence thereof, the petitioners may be regularize otherwise, respondents be dealt according to law and they be prosecuted for violating the orders passed by this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that infact, the decision of this Court is not for particularity to regularize the petitioners but it was attached to CPLA submitted in case of Uzma Bashir which to was decided by this Court and it was promised to similar treatment in terms of judgment of this Court subject to decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also argued that the petitioners had an opportunity to apply for regular posts advertised thrice by following such method 14 female and 5 male teachers initially working on contract basis were appointed on regular basis but these petitioners since not performing duties from 15-1-2006, therefore, their case cannot comes within any criteria sketch by any of the decision or even the latest policy pronounced by the Cabinet Division. From bare perusal there appears no contemptuous act on the part of alleged contemnors as such these petitions merits no consideration. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the decision delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in so many connected petitions of like nature which to discussed the policy introduced by the Government of Pakistan for the purpose of considering cases of their contracts because they have been working against the posts for the last so many years. However, it is also observed that except those of ad- hoc employees or teachers who fall within the definition of civil servants but failed to qualify the test, so no relief could be granted them. Therefore, he emphasized that in view of such decision of Supreme Court in Constitutional Petition No,42 of 2007 which is reproduced hereunder:--- "However, they have all agreed for the disposal of listed cases accordingly in view of the statement made by the learned Attorney General for Pakistan. We appreciate that the Government of Pakistan had laid down a policy for the purpose of considering cases instead of terminating their contracts because they had been working against the posts for the last so many years, therefore, all the listed cases in which teachers are working in above or below Grade-16 on contract basis or daily wages stand disposed of accordingly except those of ad-hoc employees or teachers who fall within the definition of civil servant but failed to qualify the test, therefore, no relief this Court could possibly grant them."
' A clear view drawn and cases of present petitioners not falling within the policy prescribed by the Government, otherwise they have been accommodated by following either decision initiated at judicial level or government level.
7. Arguments from both sides heard at length as well as record perused and policy so refereed above has also been perused.
8. At the. Very outset I would respectfully preferred the very decision passed by this Court dated 24- 6-2008 whereby the than Hon'ble Chief Justice delivered the decision which is reproduced hereunder:- "Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that this court has already taken a decision in Writ Petition No,347 of 2008 titled "Mst. Uzma Bashir v. Secretary Ministry of Education and others. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent, on instructions imparted to him by Zulfiqar, Assistant Director, Directorate of Education, Islamabad coupled with written intimation from Professor Miss Samina Nadeem, Director Model College, Islamabad stated that CPLA is being filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, against the aforementioned judgment of this court. The petitioners will be given similar treatment in terms of judgment of this court subject to decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(2) The learned counsel for the petitioners' states that this petition be disposed of in terms of the statement of learned Standing Counsel.
(3) This petition is disposed of in view of the order passed in Writ Petition No,347 of 2008."
' Another decision available in the case file that too was delivered by Hon'ble the then Chief Justice dated 30-4-2008 which too is submitted hereunder:--- "This Order shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.276 of 2008, 210 of 2008, 290 of 2008, 222 of 2008, 287 of 2008, 307 of 2008, 236 of 2008, 250 of 2008, 147 of 2008, and 260 of 2008 as common question of law is involved in all these Writ petitions.
(2) Learned counsel state that a judgment has been passed in Writ Petition No,2019 of 2006 titled "Irshad Ahmed and others v. Secretary Ministry of Education and others" on 2-4-2008, directing the respondents "to consider the cases of qualified petitioners/teachers for regularizing their services irrespective of their categorization, whether daily wages, ad-hoc or on contract, on taking into consideration their length of service at the earliest."
(3) Mr. Shamshadullah Cheema, learned Standing Counsel for respondents on instructions imparted to him by Zulfqiar, Assistant Director, Directorate of Education, Islamabad coupled with written intimation from Professor Miss Samina Nadeem, Director Model Colleges, Islamabad, states that CPLA is being filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, against the aforementioned judgment of this court. The petitioner will be given similar treatment in terms of judgment of this court subject to decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(4) Until a decision is rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no adverse action shall be taken against petitioner.
(5) Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that petitions be disposed of in terms of the statement of learned Federal Counse. Disposed of."
9. From the perusal of both the above judgments, there appears to any firm decision of regularizing the petitioners but it was attached to the outcome of pending decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which in view thereof is not fully supporting their case. For the convenience, the operative part of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is submitted hereunder:--- "Anyway, it is for the Ministry of Education to take the decision in this behalf, otherwise the petition shall be decided on merits. Adjourned for a date in office in the fourth week of January, 2010."
10. I have also gone through the policy introduced in the Cabinet Committee which specifies different categorized of the contract or daily wages employees to be regularized, categories whereof have been defined as under:---
(a) To qualify for consideration of cases by the Cabinet Committee, contractual employees must have completed one year of service, by December 31, 2010.
(b) Daily wages employees must have completed three consecutive appointments of 89 days each as on December 31, 2010, and Contractual employees working against posts that are to be filled through Federal Public Service Commission must be clearly identified in the information to be furnished to the Cabinet Committee. These posts can be withdrawn from the purview of the FPSC if considered expedient by the Ministries/Divisions, subject to approval of the competent authority."
10-A. From the perusal of such categories again it becomes crystal clear that case of petitioners not comes within ambit of such policy as such relief of any kind they cannot seek. So far the concern of contemptuous act alleged against the proposed contemnors, there appear to any clear-cut direction as contended in the criminal originals found which is said to have been violated by the respondents, on the contrary decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been communicated which too not supporting the version of petitioners. Therefore, I feel no substance in these Criminal Originals; hence, the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. However, with expectation from the competent authority, this order be communicated to them to provide an opportunity to the petitioners in view of their past experience to offer them participating the employment process, if initiated on priority basis irrespective of their categories ad hoc, contract or daily wages keeping in view their previous performances in service with grace of relaxation of their age, as most of them now are over-aged.
Criminal originals dismissed.