' Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J.-This petition has been brought to achieve directions against the Respondent No, .1 to 4 to regularize the services of the petitioner.
2. The ephemeral of the case are that the petitioner was appointed vide Employment Contract dated 03.4.2004 to the post of Assistant Programmer (BPS-16) in the office of Divisional Superintendent, Karachi. Despite lapse of considerable period he was not regularized therefore he filed Constitutional Petition No, D-983 of 2007 on the premise that the span of his contractual engagement unequivocally shows that he has been appointed against a permanent post and non-regularization of his service amounts to exploitation on the part of the departmental authority to keep a permanent post vacant and continue to employee on contract basis. The earlier petition of the same Petitioner (C.P.No, D-983 of 2007) was disposed of vide judgment dated 14.10.2010 and for the case of reference, Paragraph 9 and 10 of the judgment are reproduced as under: "9. It is one of the most nefarious kinds of exploitation that a person is recruited on contract for a post of permanent nature and is continued as such from year to year keeping that person on the tenterhooks of uncertainty with the sword of termination of contract permanently hanging over his head by nothing but the most fragile thread of one knotted eyebrow of a superior. Such a situation cannot be, and indeed should not be allowed to be countenanced."
10. Thus it appeared that the post is permanent in nature; there are no rules making it a post to be filled through promotion and the petitioner has worked on the post, though on contract basis, for a number of years. Being conscious of the fact that this Court cannot assume to itself jurisdiction of Selection Authority as that role must be left to the departmental authorities to perform, we direct the Respondent No, 2 to, within a period of two months, assess the suitability of petitioner for permanent absorption on the post and thereafter take action in accordance with the law and submit report to this Court. This Constitution Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Listed application is also disposed of."
(The judgment is reported in 2011 PLC (C.S) 281)
3. The petitioner argued in person that he applied for the post of Assistant Programmer through proper channel and was initially appointed on contract basis for 02 years. Consequent upon his appointment, the petitioner was relieved by the learned District Judge, Hyderabad through office Order No, 36 dated 22.4.2004 subject to lien of the petitioner to be maintained for two years. After relieving from his parent department, the petitioner joined Respondent No, 1.. He successfully completed his two years contract and throughout his incumbency no chance of complaint was given to the respondents. After completion of contract, the petitioner was not relieved but verbally directed to continue his job. Subsequently he was directed to perform his duties through a letter dated 02.10.2006 which was followed by another letter dated 01.11.2006. The petitioner was given an understanding that the cases of contractual staff working in IT Department of Pakistan Railways hasp been strongly recommended to the Ministry of Railways as such the said staff was directed to continue their job till the decision is arrived. Since the petitioner was not relieved by the respondents therefore he applied for extension of his lien to the learned District Judge, Hyderabad but the same was declined and since then he is no mole employee of the District Court, Hyderabad and he lost his permanent employment. He further argued that after rendering services for a considerable period of time, he has a legitimate right and expectation to be regularized but the respondents are avoiding regularization on different pretexts.
4. The learned counsel for the Respondent No, 1 to 4 argued that no assurance for permanent absorption was given to the appellant. The contractual employment is valid only for the time frame stipulated therein. The contractual appointment cannot be converted into permanent employment without completing the formalities and approval of the competent authority. 'Working on permanent post does not accrue right to consider a contract employee as permanent. He further argued that the post of assistant programmer (BS-16) is a permanent post but the petitioner was appointed on contract basis hence he cannot be regularized on the basis of his qualification unless codal formalities are complied with in respect of his regularization.
5. Heard the arguments. It is distinctively emerging from the record that in the earlier petition, the Respondent No, 2 was directed to consider and assess the suitability of the Petitioner for his permanent absorption within two months and submit the report to this Court. Seemingly this order was not complied with therefore the petitioner filed this fresh petition rather than putting forward a contempt application in his earlier petition for implementation of order in its true perspective.
6. In this ensuing petition too, his prayer is identical. Petitioner has also pointed out Page 97, which is an Office Memorandum conveyed by the Deputy. Director, Admn.II, Pakistan