' ROOH UL AMIN KHAN, J.--- This single judgment shall dispose of the instant writ petition as well as the above-mentioned writ petitions. Some of the writ petitions are at motion stages, some at pre - admission and some in notice, but as identical facts and controversy is involved in all the writ petitions, so are taken jointly.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they being qualified/ obtained their Primary Teaching Certificates from Allama lqbal Open University, Islamabad, have not been treated at par with those qualified from Government Elementary Colleges and thus had been denied in the year 1999, when they applied for their appointments in the Education Department as PTCs/PSTs. They seek direction of this Court to the respondents to consider them on 25% quota reserved for the denied candidates of Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad, as already settled by this Court in the year 2004:
3. The controversy of denied candidates of Allama Iqbal Open University Islamabad has already been settled by Full Bench of this court in Writ Petition No,374 of 98, titled, "Barber Elahi and others v.
Director of Education Primary Schools N.-W.F.P. Peshawar and others) vide judgment dated 20-5- 2000, wherein it has been held that certificate obtained from Government Institutions and the one obtained from Allama Iqbal Open University should be taken not only equal but the candidates who have acquired certificates from the respective Institutions, shall be treated at par and if the then policy of the Government was allowed to continue, was held to be discriminatory. The Government of N.-W.F.P. (now KPK) and some other private individuals being discontented with the judgment of this Court, filed petition before the apex Court and the august Supreme Court upheld the decision of this Court vide judgment dated 28-5-2002 with the following observations:--- "In most of the appeals, learned counsel stated at the Bar that the appellants/respondents were duly selected by the relevant Selection Committees of the Government 9n merits, but their appointments have been withheld on account of order of status quo passed by this Court while granting leave to appeal on 17-8-2000. Since these appeals are being finally disposed of, such selectees subject to academic qualifications shall be immediately appointed to their respective posts as, prima facie; there is no other embargo in their way. We are informed at the Bar that a large number of vacancies of PTC Teachers exist at the moment. Such of the appellants who were non-suited in C.A. No,1910 of 2000 shall be sympathetically considered for appointment in the first instance and, if they are otherwise qualified and suitable for the job, they must be given preference over new entrants. In case some of the affected appellants/ respondents are over-age by passage of time, Provincial Government shall consider their case with utmost compassion and fairness by relaxing upper age limit, Needless to urge that, technicalities should not thwart the course of justice, as legal procedures are essentially meant to regulate the proceedings and to advance the cause of justice rather than to frustrate the ends of justice."
4. Now the policy of appointment on batch wise basis has been done away with and the august Supreme Court as well as Full Bench of this Court have settled that PT certificate of both the institutions i.e, Allama Iqbal Open University and Government Colleges should not only be taken equal but the candidates of both the Institutions shall be treated at par. Later on, the controversy was again brought before this Court through W.P. No,75 of 2003, which was allowed vide order dated 28-4-2004. Concluding Para of the judgment (Supra) is reproduced which read as under:--- "By the time that all the candidates like petitioners and similarly placed persons are adjusted but on merit, those found fit on merit if because of earlier denial to their appointment by the Government, the Government shall relax age as permissible under the law. With these recommendations we allow these three writ petitions but with no order as to costs."
5. Once again, one Dilabaz, who had qualified his P.T.C. from Allama Iqbal Open University in the year 1998, was refused appointment on the ground that he does not fall in the category of denied candidates being qualified his P.T.C. from Allama Iqbal Open University in the year 1998, thus, he challenged the order of his refusal through W.P. No,181-B.of 2011 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 6-12-2012 and the respondents were directed to consider him against the post of PTC under 25% quota reserved for candidates, qualified PTC from Allama Iqbal Open University.
6. Besides, in so many other writ petitions, filed by individuals, this Court has reiterated the view taken in the above referred judgments, thus, the law on the subject has been settled by this Court as well as by the apex Court. After decision of a question of law by a competent Court on a subject, the department is under legal obligation to follow and apply it in letter and spirit with its independent mind, without compelling each and every individual to knock the door of the Court. In such like cases the apex Court while deciding the case titled, "Hameed Akhtar Niazi v.
The Secretary, Establishment Division Government o Pakistan and others" (1996 SCM R 1185), was pleased to hold in the following words:--- "In our view, it will be just and proper to remand the case to the Tribunal with the direction to re- examine the above case after notice to the affected persons and to decide the same afresh in the light of above observations. We may observe that if the Tribunal or this Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of the civil servant who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings; in such a case the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of the above judgment be extended to other civil servants, who may not be parties to the above litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum".
' The same view has been reiterated by the august, Supreme Court in case titled, "Government of Punjab through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others v. Sameena Parveen and others" (2009 SCM R 1).
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.A.-G. along with the District Education Officers Lakki Marwat and Bannu, respectively, when confronted with the judgment of this Court and the Apex Court where the same controversy has already been resolved, they candidly conceded and mutual consensus developed that the cases of the petitioners be sent to the concerned District Education Officers, respectively, who shall consider each and every case on merit in accordance with the judgment passed in W.P. No,75 of 2003, decided on 28-4-2004 and W.P. No,181-B of 2011 dated 6-12-2012. The respondents shall relax the age of each petitioners as permissible under the law; petitioners be considered in the above said manner, in forthcoming appointment process, after proper advertisement and recommendations of Departmental Selection Committee.
However, those who had not applied before the District Education Officers in the year 1996 to 2004, they shall not be deemed and considered as denied candidates.
8. In view of the above, all these writ petitions are admitted for regular hearing and disposed of in the above said terms, duly agreed by the parties and their respective counsel. Office is directed to send copy of these writ petitions to the respective District Education Officers for doing the needful, as observed above.