' MRS. AYESHA A. MALIK, J.--- This Writ Petition decides upon the issues raised in W.Ps. Nos.7072, 4118, 4651 4652, 8828, 11906, 17989, 30917 of 2013 and 504 of 2014.
2. There are two common issues that have been raised in the instant petitions. The first issue is that the petitioners were appointed on contract posts. Their contracts were extended in 2012 for a period of five years. However through an arbitrary and unilateral act, the respondents cancelled the five years extension and reduced the contract period to one year. This issue was heard and decided vide order dated 21-11-2013 wherein the respondents impugned letter dated 22-2-2013 was set aside and the term of contract was maintained as per its last extension in the year 2012.
3. The second issue that is common to all the writ petitions is the prayer for regularization. The petitioners seek regularization in the same manner as the similarly placed colleagues who were regularized by the respondents in the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. The case of the petitioners is that they were employed as School Health and Nutrition Supervisors (SH&NS) (BS-17) in the Health Department, Governmentt of Punjab on contract basis. Their contracts were extended from time to time. During the course of their employment, under various different policies, similarly placed colleagues in the Health Department were regularized by the respondents. The petitioners are aggrieved by the policy set out in the Notification No,DS(O&M) (S&GAD)5-3/2013 dated 1-3-2013 on the basis of which their case for regularization is to be considered. The grievance of the petitioners is that under the notification of 1-3-2013, the cases of the petitioners will be considered after determination by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) of their suitability for appointment on regular basis. In this regard, the petitioners have impugned paragraphs 'C' and 'D' of the Notification No,DS(O&M) (S&GAD)5-3/2013 dated 1-3-2013.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No,7072 of 2013 argued that the competent authority has regularized the services of their colleagues without reference to the PPSC and therefore it is discriminatory for the petitioners cases to be sent to the PPSC on the basis of the notification dated 1-3-2013. Learned counsel argued that the petitioners were appointed to the post of the SH&NS (BS- 17) in pursuance. of different advertisements through Selection Committees. However for the purposes of regular appointment, the petitioners' cases will be referred to the PPSC which is discriminatory because others who have been regularized in the Health Department have been regularized without recourse to the PPSC. Learned counsel has relied upon Notifications No, SO .D .G(Dev)(LG)9-3/2010/BDA dated 28-3-2011 issued by the Government of Punjab, Local Government and Community. Development Department, Lahore to show regularization of Director Community Development and Administration, Deputy Director (CD), Assistant Director (CD), Research Officer, Director Engineering, Deputy Director Construction, Assistant Director, Auto Cad Draftsman, Sub- Engineer (Mechanical), Draftsman, Sub-Engineer (Civil), Lab. Assistant, Assistant Director Finance, Deputy Director Computer, Computer Programmer, Assistant Computer Programmer, Computer Operator, Junior Clerk, Office Assistant, Senior Clerk, Junior Clerk, Driver, Daftri, Naib Qasid, Chowkidar, Mali and Sweeper, S.O.WMO/Misc-16/2008 dated 1-1-2010 to show regularization of Women Medical Officers, No,S.O.WMO/1-1/2009(MNCH)(DEGREE) dated 5-1-2010 to show regularization of Women Medical Officer, No,S.O.WMO/1-1/2009(MNCH)(DEGREE) dated 5-5-2010 to show regularization of Women Medical Officer, S.O.WMO/1 1/2009(MNCH)(DEGREE) dated 23-11-2010 to show regularization of Women Medical Officers, S.O.WMO/1-1/ 2009(MNCH)(DEGREE) dated 7-3- 2010 to show regularization of Women Medical Officer, S.O.WMO/1-1/2009(MNCH)(DEGREE) dated 17- 6-2010 to show regularization of Women Medical Officer, S.O.WMO/1-1/ 2009(MNCH)(DEGREE) dated 27-3-2010 to show regularization of Women Medical Officer, No,S.O.WMO/1-1/2009(MNCH)(P) dated 26-1-2011 to show regularization of Women Medical Officer, issued by the Government of the Punjab, Health Department, No,SO(CD)1-R 56/2009 dated 16-7-2010 issued by the Government of the Punjab, Home Department to show regularization of all officers in BS-16 and above of the Punjab Emergency Service (Rescue 1122), No,l-16/2011-Admn dated 12-11-2013 issued by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education, Trainings and Standards in Higher Education, Islamabad to show regularization of contract persons of BPS 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 9, 7, 4 and 1 of National Commission for Human Development (NCHD), Islamabad and No,F.5(3)/2012-HW/LHWs dated 21-1- 2013 issued by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Inter-Provincial Coordination, Islamabad to show regularization of LHWs etc.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.Ps. Nos.11906, 4651 and 4652 of 2013 argued that many different employees of the Health Department have been regularized without recourse of to the PPSC and the petitioners should not be sent to the PPSC for regularization. Learned counsel further argued that the respondents have formulated a policy of pick and choose and regularize those who they desire and impose harsh conditions on those who they do not want to regularize. Learned counsel has also relied upon various different notifications to show that employees of the Health Department have been regularized on the recommendations of the Recruitment Committees taking their posts out of the purview of the PPSC.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No,4118 of 2013 argued that it is the fundamental right of the Petitioners to be regularized and not to be discriminated against. He argued that employing the petitioners on contract is a form of exploitation when regular posts are available and there is no justification for the change in the policy of regularization so far as the petitioners are concerned.
He, argued that the contract employees are vulnerable and at the mercy of their employers. He argued that the petitioners are entitled to be regularized under a fair policy across the board being the same for all government employees.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.Ps. Nos.8828, 17989, 30917 of 2013 and 504 of 2014 argued that the petitioners since their initial appointment against the posts have been performing their responsibilities and assignments to the satisfaction of their superiors. The petitioners are entitled to be regularized without recourse to the PPSC. Learned counsel argued that regularization of employees in the same category but on different principles is unfair and unjust.
8. Report and parawise comments have been filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned Law Officer argued that the petitioders have all been appointed on contract on the recommendations of the relevant Selection Committees. Learned Law Officer argued that as per the terms of their contract, their appointment is a temporary appointment on contract basis extendable by the appointing authority. Learned Law Officer further argued that the contract specifically provides that the petitioners have no right of regular appointment. Learned Law Officer argued that the posts at which the petitioners have been appointed are programme posts and they cannot be equated with other posts where people have been regularized. Learned Law Officer further argued that the petitioners can be considered for regularization under the relevant notifications and prevailing policy. The fact that similarly placed employees were regularized under the different terms and conditions does not create a case of discrimination against the petitioners. Learned Law Officer argued that many of the petitions have been filed prematurely because the petitioners have not filed any representation before the competent authority to be considered for regularization.
Learned Law Officer further argued that some employees did approach the Secretary Health, where-after he gave due consideration to this matter and passed an order bearing No,SLO/WP- 30854/2012 dated 7-2-2013. In terms of the order, it was found that Basic Health Unit was created to cater to health facilities at school level on temporary basis and all posts were filled on contract, on the basis of recruitment criteria. Their regularization, if at all, will be done after a decision is made by the competent authority to regularize the post. Learned Law Officer further submitted that the petitioners fall under the 2013 policy for which their cases have to be referred to the PPSC.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the record available on the file.
10. The basic issue before this Court is whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization without referring their cases to the PPSC. The impugned notification of 1-3-2013 provides for the procedure for appointment of contract employees in BS-16 and above working against project posts, programme posts, PMUs and PMOs. The gist of the policy is that regularization will be done on the recommendations of the PPSC. The cases of contract employees in BS-16 and above who were appointed A on the recommendations of the Selection Committee may be referred to the PPSC for determining their suitability for appointment on regular basis against the posts held by the contract employees. The contract employees who were appointed on the recommendations of Departmental Selection Committee will be referred to the PPSC for determining their suitability for appointment on regular basis against the posts held by the contract employees. The contract employees who were appointed on the recommendations of the PPSC are to be. considered for regular appointment by the competent authority subject to the framing of service rules stipulating the basic eligibility criteria, qualifications and experience required for regular appointment. The petitioners are aggrieved by paragraph 'C' and 'D' of the notification of 1-3-2013 because on the basis of the said paragraphs, their cases will be referred to the PPSC for appointment on regular basis. The petitioners have relied upon numerous notifications of the Health Department wherein they have regularized services of Medical Officers, Women Medical Officers, Registrars, Assistant Anesthetists, Demonstrators, Blood Transfusion Officers, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics and Charge Nurse. The petitioners have also relied upon the notifications issued for Elementary School Teachers, Educators, Headmasters, Headmistress and Subject Specialists who were regularized without referring their cases to the PPSC. I have reviewed the notifications which have been appended with the petitions and relied upon by the petitioners. The regularization notifications relied upon by the petitioners are not for the post of SH&NS. They include different posts in the Health Department, Education Department, Home Department, Local Government and Community Development Department, Ministry of Education, Trainings and Standards in Higher Education and Ministry of Inter-Provincial Coordination. The Government of Punjab has from time to time regularized different posts in terms of its policy. Regularization of one post will not entitle persons on another post to demand regularization and on the same terms. In terms of the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held in S.M.C. No,15 of 2010 and C.M.As. Nos.2689, 3244 of 2010 and C.M.As. Nos.5383, 3068 of 2011 (2013 SCM R 304), the petitioners do not have a vested right for regular appointment. The record shows that the petitioners have never been denied regularization ID as the petitioners have not even moved the competent authority for the IE purposes of regularization. Furthermore it has been stated by the learned I Law Officer that these are programme posts which have not been converted to regular posts at the moment, hence the petitioners' cases, presently, cannot be considered for regularization. The petitioners are working under their contract and can always apply to the competent authority for regularization of their post. However, the fact that others in the Health Department have been regularized without recourse to the PPSC does not create a case of discrimination simply because all employees who were regularized previously were working in the Health Department. For the purposes of discrimination in regularization, each IF post has to be seen, and not the regularization of every post in the department. Furthermore none of the petitioners have placed anything on the record to show that the Government of Punjab has regularized SH&NS under the 1-3-2013 notification without recourse to the PPSC. The petitioners on the basis of the order of this Court dated 21-11-2013 have a subsisting contract for 3 to 5 years. The petitioners during the subsistence of their contract may apply for regularization before the competent authority. However there is no illegality with the impugned Notification dated 1-3-2013, simply on the strength that others in the Health Department have been regularized without recourse to the PPSC.
11. Under the circumstances, no case for interference is made out. Petitions are dismissed.