' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, C.J.--- Through the instant constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have made the following prayer:--- "It is respectfully prayed that the instant writ petition may graciously be accepted and the writ may kindly be issued by declaring the impugned advertisement dated 3-1-2010 as illegal and unlawful and in consequence thereof, the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from the date of their initial appointments before making any such appointments in order to safe guard the careers, seniority and promotion chances of the petitioners".
2. Precisely, the facts necessary for the adjudication of the instant writ petition are that Frequency Allocation Board/ respondent No,2, advertised nine posts of Assistant Director (EG-02) on 29th July, 2006. The petitioners applied for appointment against these posts and after fulfillment of the formal procedure, the petitioners were selected as Assistant Directors (EG-02) in the Frequency Allocation Board/ respondent No,2. At the time of appointment of the petitioners, Frequency, Allocation Board had no Service Regulations. Frequency Allocation Board Employees Service Regulations, 2007 were approved and notified by the Federal Government vide notification dated 6th October, 2007, and as per 'these Regulations, Cabinet Secretary is the competent authority to make appointments against the posts in BPS-17 to 19 in Frequency Allocation Board. The cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services were submitted to the Cabinet Secretary, however, same were turned down by the competent authority i,e, Cabinet Secretary and thereafter, the respondents advertised the posts of Assistant Directors (BS-17), already occupied by the petitioners, through the impugned advertisement dated 3-1-2010, hence, the instant writ petition.
3. In pursuant to the notice issued to the respondents, report and parawise comments have been filed on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners were appointed in response to an advertisement dated 29th July, 2006, published in the print media, wherein it was categorically mentioned that the services of candidates recruited against the posts of Assistant Directors (EG-02) would be regularized on completion of Probation as well on satisfactory performance. Moreover in the appointment letters of the petitioners, the period of contract was mentioned as upto age of superannuation i,e, 60 years, as such, the appointments of the petitioners cannot be termed as contract appointments.; that the petitioners were appointed after fulfillment of all the nodal formalities and they have served respondent No,2 for a considerable time; that the performance of the petitioners is also satisfactory, hence, they cannot be deprived from the fruits of their permanent appointments merely on the plea that they were appointed against contract posts; that the petitioners are qualified persons, having unmatched experience and have got specialized foreign /local training in the respective field; that the petitioners have crossed age limit of 3 years and as such cannot apply for any Government Job; that the petitioners cannot be penalized on the basis of mismanagement and illegal action of the then Chairman PTA and are as such, entitled for regularization of their services. Learned counsel has relied upon 2003 SCMR 291, 2007 CLD 1092 (Karachi) PLD 2006 Lahore 609, PLD 2001 Supreme Court 176 and 2010 PLC (C.S.) 665.
5. Learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing on behalf of respondent No,1 argued with vehemence that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis and in their appointment letters it was specifically mentioned that contract appointment shall be liable to termination on thirty days' notice; that at the time of appointment of the petitioners, service rules of Frequency Allocation Board were not in field and Chairman PTA had approved the appointments of the petitioners. However, after the approval of the Frequency Allocation Board Employees Service Regulations, 2007, the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services was sent by the FAB to the Cabinet Division and the Cabinet Division had sought opinion from the Establishment Division in this respect, however, Establishment Division had opined that contractual officers can neither be regularized with immediate effect nor from the date of joining Frequency Allocation Board and they can only be regularized when they will go through the prescribed procedure.
Learned Deputy Attorney-General has further stressed that in the impugned advertisement it is specifically mentioned that preference would be given to the experienced candidates, as such, the petitioners should appear in the Test/interview to be conducted by, the authorities for appointment against the regular posts of Assistant Director (BS-17). Learned Deputy Attorney- General has argued that this Court in W.P. No,2493 of 2010 and I.C.A. No,120 of 2010 has held that contract appointment does not create any right in favour of an employee for appointment against a regular post, hence, instant writ petition be, dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No,2 has argued that before promulgation of Frequency Allocation Board Employees 'Service Regulations, 2007, nine posts of Assistant Directors (EG-02) were advertised in the press and on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Directors (EG-02) on contract basis and these appointments were approved by the then Chairman PTA; that keeping in view the performance of the petitioners, a summary for regularization of their services was referred to the Cabinet Division for ex-post-facto approval of the competent authority, however, Cabinet Secretariat had informed that the petitioners services can be regularized only as and when they will go through the prescribed procedure meant for regular appointments. Learned counsel has stressed that the services of the petitioners are required to the Frequency Allocation Board/respondent No,2, as their performance is very much satisfactory. The petitioners also meet the required threshold for the posts of Assistant Directors and the department does not want to lose their services, keeping in view their long standing experience earned by them.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Deputy Attorney-General, as well as learned counsel for respondent No,2 and perused the record.
8. It is evident from the record available on file, that the Frequency Allocation Board/respondent No,2 had advertised nine posts of Assistant Directors (EG-02) vide advertisement dated 29th July, 2006 published in the print media. The petitioners submitted their applications and after fulfillment of the coal formalities, the petitioners were appointed as An Assistant Directors (EG-02). In the advertisement dated 29th July, 2006, it was mentioned that "the candidates appointed against the posts of Assistant Directors would be initially on probation and on satisfactory performance would be regularized" as such, the petitioners were given impression that they would be regularized, on satisfactory performance. Learned counsel for respondent No,2, has stated that at the time of appointment of the petitioners. Service Regulations of Frequency Allocation Board were not in field and same were promulgated in the year, 2007 and after the promulgation of Frequency Allocation Board Employees Service Regulations, 2007, a summary for regularization of the petitioners services was referred to the competent authority i,e, Secretary Cabinet Division, however, Cabinet Secretariat had informed that the services of the petitioners can be regularized only, as and when they will go through she prescribed procedure meant for regular appointments. The petitioners are working as Assistant Directors (EG-02) for the last about five years and their performance is graded as satisfactory by the department and this satisfaction of the department is earned by them through years of labour, hard work and through years of sweat and toil and during this period, the petitioners, have crossed the age limit of 30 years and thus, have lost the opportunity of fresh appointment in any Government Organization. The petitioners services, as stated by learned counsel for respondent No,2 are required by the department, however, their services cannot be regularized without undergoing prescribed procedure i,e, conducting of test/interview. In such circumstances, the courts have been taking sympathetic considerations and have been directing the departments to regularize the services of such employees by completing the said formalities of appointments without any fresh application. A glaring example is the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Dr. Naveeda Tufail and 72 others v. Government of Punjab and others (2003 SCMR 291).
9. In view of the above perspective, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services in accordance with prescribed procedure. With the above direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.