{{BLUR PAGE}} ' M.SOHAIL IQBAL BHATTI, J. --- The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioners in response to the publications. Made on 27.12.2006 and 19.8.2007 by District" Co-ordination Officer, Attock were appointed as Arabic Teachers While possessing the following ,qualifications:- Mst. Farhana Naz (M.A. History, M.A.> Urdu, cB. Ed., M. Ed., ATTC).
Mst.- Atiqa Yasmeen (M.A. History, B., Ed., ATTC), ATTC,,CT). Mtt. Asia Bibi (M.A. Urdu, B. Ed., ATTC). Habib-ur-Rehman (M.A. History, B. Ed.,, OT). Mst Asifa ,Sattar (B.A., B.Ed.; A TTC).
Mst. Sawa lqbal (B.A.. B Ed..' ATTC).
8. Lidsf. Nasira-Bibi (B.A., B. Ed.,'ATTC), 9 Nisi': Taliat Jabeen (B.A:, B. Ed,, ATTC).
10. Mst. Zakiya Kausar (B.A., B. Ed., ATTC).
11. Muhanimaci Shoaib (B.A., a Ed.. ATTC).
12. Hafit Hahmat lqbal (B.A, C.7.. ATTC).
13. Gul-e-Nosrpen (B.A Arm.
14. ;Muhammad Masood (Shahadat-ul-Alia, ATTC).
15. Khalid Mehmood (Shahadat-ul-Alia, ATTC).
16. Mst. Asma Sadia (B.A., ATTC).
17. Mst. Fozia Bibi (B.A., ATTC), Arabic Educator).
18. Shakir Mehmood Alvi (Shahadat-ul Aalmia, B. Ed.).
19. Fayyaza Bibi (B.A. Shahadat-ul Aahnia, ATTC) (Secondary School Educator). {{TABLE}}
2. While the petitioners were serving as Arabic Teachers; the Government of Punjab for regularization of services of the employees working in the Education Department issued a Notification dated 19.10.2009. Para No, 7 of the Notification is re-produced below:--- "7. The posts presently held by the contract employees shall stand abolished and equal number of posts in the respective category with nomenclature of regular posts and pay scales shall be created on regular side for appointment of the above-mentioned contractees."
3. Since the petitioners and other employees working in the Education Department were treated discriminatorily, the petitioners alongwith other employees invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Different writ petitions :filed before this Court were disposed of on 15.2.2013 The learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 15 2.2013 set out the parameters for the Education Department regarding regularization as under:--- "(i) If the applicant was in service at the time of issuance of notification dated 19.10.2009.
(ii) If the appointment was made under the Policy in force at the relevant time and completion of all coda! Formalities.
(iii) Whether the applicant was eligible for the post and possessed the required academic qualification at the time of appointment and submitted the certificates before assumption of the charge.
(iv) Whether the posts were available at the time of appointment and the same are still available to accommodate them.
(v) Whether the applicant was within the prescribed age limit (the upper age limit of course, would be as per general relaxation already granted).
(vi) The fate of honorary teachers should be decided separately keeping in view the terms & conditions of the contract and real intent of the same.
(vii) Whether the applicant bears neat, clean and unblemished record."
4. It was further observed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers that if the petitioners were duly qualified at the time of appointment; the mere change of nomenclature should not expose about 190 families to starvation and the matter be resolved on humanitarian ground without keeping in view the regime or name of the Nazim/DCO at the relevant time.
5. It was further observed by this Court while disposing of Crl. Original No, 102-W/2013 on 19.11.2013 as under:--- "The change in the nomenclature shall not be used as an excuse to deprive the contract employees of the benefit of regularization of their services if they otherwise are equipped with the requisite qualification."
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in Crl. Original No, 102-W/2013 the Scrutiny Committee was constituted. The Scrutiny Committee has regularized the services of :160 employees rendering services in the Education Department in District Attock, while 30 teachers including the petitioners have been non-suited on the ground that they did not possess the academic. Qualifications prescribed for EST (Arabic). The learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioners possessed the requisite qualifications at the time of their appointment the subsequent change of nomenclature and qualifications should not become an impediment for considering the cases of the petitioners as EST (Arabic). The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court that even otherwise the petitioners while possessing the qualifications of EST (General) can be considered for regularization under Para No, 10 of the Notification dated 7.6.2013.
7. Conversely, the learned Law Officer has vehemently opposed this petition and argued that the services of 2255 employees were regularized in pursuance to the Notification dated 19.10.2009.
Moreover, the services of 160 employees have been regularized and the petitioners being not possessed with the requisite qualifications could not have been considered for regularization. It is further contended that during the hearing of earlier Criminal Original 47-W/2013 the counsel for the petitioners had withdrawn the criminal original when Notification dated 7.6.2013 was placed before the Court and thus the principle of Acquiescence would applicable in the present case.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
9. There is no denial to the act that the petitioners were appointed as Arabic Teachers as back as in the year 2007 and dispensing with the services of the petitioners at this belated stage merely on the ground that after change of nomenclature the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualifications, and, therefore, their ,services cannot be regularized does 'not appeal to prudence.
Subsequent change in policy requiring different qualifications can it affect the right of the petitioners from being extended the benefit of regularization as at the time of their appointment they possessed relevant qualifications. The extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is always exercised with compassion and this Court cannot disregard the fact that non- regularization of services of the petitioners is an act violative of right to livelihood. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed in 2003 SCM R 291 (Dr. Naveeda Tufail and 72 others v.
Government of Punjab and others as under:- -. "Employment for a common person is a source of livelihood and a right of livelihood is an undeniable right to a person. If work is sole source of livelihood of a person, then right to work is not less than a fundamental right which has to be given protection."
' If the services of 160 employees can be regularized after relaxation of rules by the competent authority the petitioners should not be non-suited as some reasonable differentia has to be drawn to justify as to why petitioners are being meted out with this discriminatory treatment and the differentia must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved whereas this Court has held in an unambiguous terms that change in nomenclature shall not be used as an excuse to deprive the employees from the benefit of regularization of their services. A right to be regularized has accrued to the petitioners; and at such a belated stage when the petitioners are not considered for regularization on the basis of change in nomenclature; most of the petitioners would not be eligible to be reemployed. The attention of this Court has also been drawn towards letter dated 27.7.2013 addressed by District Education Officer (W) EE Attock to Executive District Officer Education with the following recommendations:--- "The Chief Minister, Punjab, in exercise of powers conferred upon him by rule 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, is pleased to order the appointment of the petitioners, against the equivalent posts in the District, on regular basis, in relaxation of rules 4, 16 and 17 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974."
' Meaning thereby that the cases of the petitioners can also be considered for regularization- as EST (G), as is evident from the above para.
10. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to Secretary Education/respondent No 2 to sympathetically and compassionately consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization as EST (General) if they do not qualify to be regularized as EST (Arabic) on account of change of nomenclature and qualifications within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.