' LAL JAN KHAN KHATTAK, J.--- Our this judgment shall also decide the fate of Writ Petition No,146-D of 2012, titled Samina Tabassum v. Secretary to the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others as common question of law and facts is involved in both the petitions.
2. Petitioner Shafqat Munir has prayed for issuance of a writ directing the respondents Nos.l to 4 to regularize his services as Principal Mufti Mehmood Public School, Dera Ismail Khan and that the contract appointment of respondent No,6 as Principal of the said school be declared as illegal, null, void and ineffective upon the rights of the petitioner.
3. Necessary facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Sector Director BPS-18 Education Project Khyber Pakhtunkhwa when on 11-1-2007, he was appointed as Principal Mufti Mehmood Public School D.I. Khan on acting charge basis with fix salary package of Rs,35,000 per month, vide order dated 11-1-2007. One of the terms and conditions of his appointment was that his period of contract shall be two years from the date of taking over his charge or till selection/ appointment of a permanent appointee.
4. Grievance of the writ petitioner arose when Managing Director Elementary Education Foundation/respondent No,3 published an advertisement in daily 'Mashriq' on 20-11-2009 inviting applications from eligible candidates for their appointment on contract basis as Principal Mufti Mehmood Public School, D.I. Khan. In pursuance of such advertisement, respondent No,6 applied and after the process of interview etc, she was appointed as Principal to the school vide office order dated 15-2-2010. Her appointment too was for a period of two years.
5. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of the appointment of respondent No,6 and non- regulatization of his services under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services)
Act, 2009 has approached this court for a relief mentioned in para-2 above.
6. Identical is the case of writ petitioner Samina Tabassum bearing Writ Petition No,146-D of 2012.
She was serving in the school as its Principal in pursuance of her order of appointment issued on 15-2-2010 when an advertisement was published in daily 'Aaj' on 1-4-2012 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Principal Mufti Mehmood Public School D.I. Khan. She impugned this advertisement and prayed for a writ to regularize her as Principal as per section 3 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No,213-D of 2010 contended in support of his petition that the Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has enacted a law for the regularization of services of its employees known as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 (Act No, XVI of 2009). He contended that case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Regularization Act ibid and that the Official respondents are duty bound to act under the law by regularizing service of the petitioner as Principal of the School.
8. Learned counsel appearing in Writ Petition No,146-D of 2012 also argued that the advertisement published in the newspaper on behalf of the official respondents be declared null and void being ineffective upon her rights and further contended that the petitioner be regularized as Principal of the school as per provision of the Act ibid.
9. As against this, learned Additional Advocate-General argued on behalf of the official respondents that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed for as neither the writ petitions are maintainable nor their cases are covered under the Act ibid. He further pointed out that the school has no statutory rules for governing terms and conditions of its employees and in absence of any such rules and violation thereof, the writ petitioners are not entitled to pursue their cases under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record of the cases.
11. Main contention of both the petitioners is that the petitioners are entitled for their regularization under the Act ibid and that the re-advertisement is not legal and is ineffective upon their rights.
12. After giving our anxious consideration to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and going through the law on the subject matter, it appears to us that the Act is not applicable to the petitioners at all. Firstly that the not employees of the Government rather they are employees of a public school which is not run by Government but is governed by its Board of Directors. When they are not employees of Provincial Government and the Act has not been enacted for their regularization then how the petitioners can become beneficiaries of the Act.
Section 2(b) of the Act defines the employees as under:--- "Employee" means an ad hoc or a contract employee appointed in government on ad hoc or contract basis but does not include the employees for project post or appointed on work charge basis or who are paid out of contingencies.
13. Much emphasis was given on section 3 of the Act ibid which is reproduced here for the purpose of convenience:--- "3. Regularization of services of certain employees:-
(1) All employees including recommendees of the High Court appointed on contract and ad hoc basis and holding that post on 31st December, 2008 or till the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been validly appointed on regular basis having the same qualifications and experience for a regular post".
14. A bare reading of the provisions of the Act shows that it applies only to cover up the cases of those employees who are appointed against the government sanctioned posts and who are holding such posts on or before 31-8-2008 or till the commencement of this Act and also have same qualification and experience prescribed for a regular post.
15. As the petitioner Shafqat Munir was appointed on acting charge basis with fixed monthly salary of Rs,35, 000 in a public school not run by the Government but by a Board of Directors, as such his case is not covered under the Act.
16. Similar is the case of petitioner Samina Tabassum which too does not come within the purview of the Act as apart from other merits of her case, she was appointed as Principal on 15-2-2010 after the promulgation of the Act.
17. In the light of aforesaid discussion, both the writ petitions are found meritless and misconceived, hence dismissed.