' NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI J.--- Through present 'writ petition, the petitioners seek following prayer:- "Under the circumstances mentioned above; it is most respectfully prayed that an appropriate writ may graciously be issued, setting aside notification dated 17.10.2012 and appointment of respondents Nos.6 to 8 may be declared null and void, having no legal effect. "
' Brief facts of the case are that petitioners were recruited in the attached Departments of Bureau of Emigration and Overseas Employment in the capacity of Assistant Directors. Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 were recruited in response to advertisement to fill the posts of Briefing and Orientation Officer (BPS-16), whereas petitioner No,3 was appointed as Assistant Director. Respondents Nos.6 to 8 were also appointed in the capacity of Deputy Directors (BPS-18) in the petitioners' Department. They were appointed on temporary basis till the availability of permanent incumbents for the posts.
Their tenure of contract was extended vide letter dated 08.03.2012. The services of respondents Nos.6 to 8 were regularized vide impugned notification dated 17.10.2012 in BPS-18 as Deputy Directors, hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued while challenging the regularization of contract employees i.e, respondents Nos.6 to 8 on the following terms:- a) The persons, holding the rank of Assistant Director and below, are to be appointed through initial recruitment and promotion according to the percentage so fixed; ' Respondent Nos.6 to 8 were appointed in the capacity of Deputy Director (BPS-18) which post is reserved to be filled by promotion; ' They were appointed on temporary basis till availability of permanent incumbents for the posts.
Their tenure of contract was not extendable, but was extended further; d) The appointments in BPS-16 and above is the prerogative of Federal Public Service Commission in view of APT Rules, 1973, which is competent to appoint, exclusion of Federal Public Service Commission in this regard is illegal in view of schedule annexed with FPSC Functions Rules, 1978; e) Regularization of services of respondents Nos.6 to 8 by the Cabinet Sub-Committee is not in accordance with the provisions of law, hence entire decision in this respect is illegal.
4. The stance taken by the respondents is that in view of APT Rules, 1973, ratio of recruitment and promotion was revised i.e, 75% by promotion and 25% by initial appointment. The President of Pakistan created 87-temporary posts for restructuring of Bureau of Immigration and Overseas Employment on the recommendations of Establishment Division vide order dated 20.07.2010, which was also concurred by the Finance Division. The decision of the Cabinet Sub-Committee is binding upon all Ministries/Divisions/Attached Departments/Autonomous Bodies/ Organizations etc., which was empowered in accordance with Rules of Business. The Cabinet Sub-Committee recommended regularization of services-of respondents Nos.6 to 8 and others after examining each case. The recommendations of Cabinet Sub-Committee, being a policy decision, are binding upon all concerned Departments if they fall within the definition provided by the Rules of Business.
The Cabinet Sub-Committee has not regularized the services of respondents Nos.6 to 8, but only recommended as such, decision has to be followed. Whenever, recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee are not regarded, those were got implemented by issuing directions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan also upheld the decisions initiated by respective High Courts for implementation of the recommendations of Cabinet Sub-Committee therefore the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the regularization of services of respondents Nos.6 to 8 by pick and choose policy, as only respondents Nos.6 to 8 have been targeted leaving aside others within the same agency therefore request of petitioners made through present writ petition is not in accordance with law.
5. I have carefully perused the record, examined the documents submitted by both the sides in support of their contentions and relevant law quoted.
6. The very crucial point involved in this case is decision of the Cabinet Sub-Committee with regard to regularization of services of contract/daily wages employees in the Ministries/Divisions/Attached Departments/Autonomous Bodies/Organizations etc.
7. The petitioners are of the view that decision earlier initiated by this Court is a guideline against which, opposite side referred decision of the learned Division Bench whereby said decision passed by learned Single Judge-in-Chambers was suspended.
8. According to Part-D Rule 16 of the Rules of Business, 1973, the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee are binding upon all Ministries/ Divisions/ Attached Departments/ Autonomous Bodies/ Organizations etc. As a general scheme envisaged in the Rules of Business, 1973, the Cabinet Sub-Committee, duly constituted, is vested with certain powers motivated by Cabinet if it initiates a decision having status of a policy decision of the government, for a class of persons, it cannot be called in question, as the same is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. In this regard, guidelines are being sought from the reported decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as under:- i) PLD 2014 Supreme Court 1 (Dossani Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. And others v. M/s Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. And others ii) 1986 SCM R 680 (Muhammad lqbal Raft and 02 others v. The Province of Punjab, Lahore and others) iii) PLD 2005 Supreme Court 193 (Arshad Mehmood and others v. Government of Punjab through Secretary, Transport, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others. iv) 2013 SCM R 1383 (Abdul Wahab and others v. HBL and others)
9. The other legal aspect, which is necessary to be taken into view, is that appointing authority as defined in APT Rules, 1973 has the powers as shown in the Schedule appended thereto. The criterion for appointment in the respective grade, by a respective authority, has been defined in detail. So fait the probation, confirmation and regularization are concerned, same are also defined in Sections 6, 7 and 2(2) of Civil ' Servants Act, 1973. The distinction in regularization as provided by the corresponding Act itself is an appointment/regularization in prescribed or non-prescribed method.
For example, an ad hoc appointment is not an appointment deemed to be in prescribed method.
The guidance for regularization of services of ad hoc employee is provided in Esta Code as well as Civil Servants Act, 1973, which is explicitly clear. Regularization of ad hoc appointment is quite distinguished to that of other appointments such as permanent, temporary, contract, contingent, work charge etc. The only way for regularization of ad hoc appointment is provided in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 itself, which has to be followed through Federal Public Service Commission.
Though it is provided in APT Rules that appointments to the posts in Grade-16 and above shall be made through Federal Public Service Commission, yet it is not for contract employment. An ad hoc employee may be regularized through Federal Public Service Commission or by Act of Parliament, as the case may be, whereas other types of appointments, if made, are not required to be regularized by such method. Likewise, initial appointment is to be made through competitive examination, whereas such condition is not applicable in the case of contract employment.
10. Admittedly, respondents were working on contract basis. Their contract period was extended further which was not challenged at any time by the petitioners. The regularization of contract employees, who A were appointed on contract basis for a certain period, is not supposed to put to tests by FPSC. In this regard, I am fortified with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as PLD 2010 SC 841, which enunciates the principle as under:- "This case thus applies and the respondents had thus been initially appointed 'on contract basis for a certain period' and have been regularized, were not supposed to put to tests by FPSC. The contentions of petitioners is misconceived and hence liable to be set aside"
11. The very legal principle involved in this case was elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above referred reported judgment, which is binding upon this Court.
12. As far as the decision of Cabinet Sub-Committee for regularization of services of contract/daily wages employees in the Ministries/ Divisions/ Attached Departments/ Autonomous Bodies/ Organizations etc. Is concerned, it is observed that recommendations of Cabinet Sub-Committee are binding upon all the Ministries/ Divisions/ Attached Departments/ Autonomous Bodies/Organizations etc. As a policy decision of the Government, therefore final order with regard to regularization of services has to be issued by the concerned authority inside the department in view of section 2(2) of Civil Servants Act, 1973 which is derived basically from Esta Code the service structure including almost all types of services in Pakistan.
13. The instances with regard to act of regularization time to time are presented as ground realities such as Regularization Act, 1994, 1996, 1997.
14. Earlier, the decisions of Cabinet Sub-Committee were upheld by all the Provincial High Courts as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Therefore, such right of regularization was admitted and duly endorsed by numerous decisions up to the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Now, at this verge, contrary view in this regard would create a new legal analogy, as to whether the court can give other view contrary to earlier decisions enunciated at the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. It would not only amount to review earlier orders passed in similar types of matters by various High Courts as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, but contemptuous too.
15. Whatever discussed above yields a result that petitioners could not be able to substantiate their contentions raised in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed being merit-less.