Through the instant order I.C.A. No. 90/2012 in W.P. No. 5932/2011, I.C.A. No. 91/2012 in W.P. No. 5872/2011, I.C.A. No. 92/2012 in W.P. No. 25770/2011, I. C.A. No. 93/2012 in W.P. No. 4219/2011, I.C.A. No. 94/2012 in W.P. No. 22653/2011, I.C.A. No. 95/2012 in W.P. No. 5400/2011, I.C.A. No. 113/2012 in W.P. No. 25770/2011/I.C.A. No. 114/2012 in W. P. No. 21168/2011, I.C.A. No. 115/2Q12 in W.P. No. 5400/2011, I.C.A. No. 116/2012 in W.P. No. 4219/2011, I.C.A. No. 117/2012 in W.P. No. 5872/2011, I.C.A. No. 118/2012 in W.P. No. 17305/2011, I.C.A. No. 119/2012 in W.P. No. 5110/2011 and I.C.A. No. 124/2012 in W.P. No. 26150/2011 are being disposed of together as in all the above mentioned appeals common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. The appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis as Hospital Pharmacists in BPS-17 for specified periods and were posted at different places in Punjab. The respondent Government invited applications for filling up the vacancies of Hospital Pharmacists on regular basis through test and interviews to be conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission under the Punjab Public Service Commission Ordinance 1978 read with Punjab Public Service Commission (Functions). Rules 1978. The appellants alongwith 28 others appeared in the test and interviews conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission. None of the appellants were declared successful by the PPSC.
However even the 28 candidates declared successful by the PPSC .were not, appointed against the vacancies declared. The appellants alongwith the above twenty eight persons instituted writ petitions before this Court which came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court.
The writ petitions of twenty eight persons who were declared successful by the PPSC were allowed through a consolidated judgment dated 31.1.2012 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court and their services were directed to be regularized. The appellants remained unsuccessful to get their services regularized.
3. Through the instant I.C.As the petitioners of writ petitions. who were not approved for regularization have assailed the judgment dated 31.1.2012 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that all the appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis against the posts of Hospital Pharmacists and their cases are at par with those of the appointees against BPS-17 posts whose services were regularized by the Government of Punjab without getting any test and interview from the Punjab Public Service Commission. It was argued that the appellants have been discriminated against. It has been prayed by the learned counsel for the appellants that a similar direction as issued in favour of the twenty eight persons by the learned single Judge of this Court against the posts of Hospital Pharmacists in BPS-17 be issued in favour of the appellants as well.
5. The learned AAG vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.
6. We have considered the. arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Admittedly all the appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis and the appointment letters issued in favour of the appellants reflected the ad hoc appointment of the appellants for a specific period till the arrival of regular incumbents through Punjab Public Service Commission. It is also a matter of record that the applications were invited by the PPSC which is a statutory body constituted under the Punjab Public Service Commission Ordinance 1978 read with Punjab Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules 1978 for making recommendations for the appointments against the post in question. Ninety one candidates submitted applications for appearing in the written test and viva-voce, out of whom forty passed the written examination and twenty eight ultimately cleared the interview process. All the ninety one persons were ignored by the respondent Government. Resultantly writ petitions mentioned in Para-1. of the impugned judgment were instituted which came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court. The services of twenty eight candidates out of ninety one petitioners, who were found eligible for initial appointment, were directed to be regularized, by the learned single Judge of this Court through the judgment dated 31.1.2012 passed in all the writ petitions. The appellants did not succeed in the interview process which has been prescribed under the provisions of Section 3 Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 for making initial recruitment against the posts. It is not the case of the appellants that they have successfully completed the entire process of the written test as well as the interviews conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The learned single Judge of this Court after relying upon the judgment (2003 SCM R 291) Naveeda Tufail case passed an order for regularization of the services of twenty eight ad hoc appointees as they successfully completed the process of written test as well as the interviews conducted by the PPSC. None of the appellants successfully completed the said process so as to claim a similar treatment as meted out to the twenty eight petitioners of the connected writ petitions. The ad hoc appointees, as the appellants were, have no vested right to claim their regularization of services without successfully completing the process prescribed by the law for initial appointment in BPS-17. The appellants voluntarily appeared in the test and interview process undertaken by the PPSC and did not succeed. No equity exists in favour of the appellants. Their cases are distinguishable from those recommended for regularization on the basis of their results.
8. The judgment passed by the learned single Judge of this Court is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference or modification. All the instant ICAs preferred before this Court are accordingly dismissed in limine.