Syed Muhammad Attique Shah, J.--Through this single judgment, we are going to decide the present Writ Petition No, 602P/2015 along with connected Writ Petition No, 1714/15 titled Intizar Ali and others vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others, and Writ Petition No, 694/2015 titled Khairul Wara and another vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others as all the writ petitions contain common questions of law and facts.
2. Through instant constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners seek the following relief:-- "For the aforesaid reasons, it is therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of this writ petition, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: (a)Declare the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012 to the extent and limit it imposes the impugned condition of possessing the required qualification at the time of first appointment of the petitioners as unconstitutional, ultra-vires,. discriminatory, unreasonable, self- chashing against the very object of the Act ibid. and hence ineffective upon the rights of petitioners; and (b)Strike down the impugned condition of possessing the required qualification at the time of first appointment of the petitioners in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012; and (c)Direct the respondents to act in the matter in accordance with law and to take exercise for suitably amending the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012 by obviating the impugned condition of possessing the required qualification at the time of first appointment of the petitioners in the Act appointed in the Act ibid, so as to bring it within the scope of the object of the Act for which it was passed; and (d)Direct the respondents to act in the matter in accordance with law and to appoint petitioners against their respective posts held by them at the time of their termination of service with all back benefits; or (e)Alternatively interpret the provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012 liberally so that petitioners could be accommodated within the folds of the Act ibid, as done in the case of other similarly placed employees by the respondents themselves; (f)Any other relief as deemed appropriate in the circumstances off' case not specifically asked for, may also be granted to petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were appointed as C.T., AWI, P.S.T., D.M. on different dates by the respondents after observing all the nodal formalities vide orders dated 17.07.1995, 29.11.1995, 07.11.1995, 30.05.1996, 13.11.1995, 23.05.1996, 06.02.1996 and 31.08.1995. Later on, their services were terminated by the respondents vide orders dated 23.05.1996, 07.01.1997, 13.02.1997, 26.06.1997 and 20.02.1997. However, the Federal Government in the year 2010 enacted "the sacked Employees (Re-Instatement) Act, 2010" and likewise, the Provincial Government has also enacted "The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012". The learned counsel further contended that the petitioners are entitled to be reinstated in service with all back benefits like other similarly placed employees.
4. The learned A.A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the case of the present petitioners is not covered under the definition of the "sacked employees" provided by Section 2 (g) of the Act ibid and thus they are not entitled to be reinstated as they were not having the required qualification at the time of their initial appointment.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the available record of the present writ petitions with their valuable assistance.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners were were terminated. However, the Provincial Government enacted for reinstatement of all those employees who were sacked, removed, terminated during the period for 1st day of November, 1996 to 31st day of December 1998. The case of the petitioners is that they are also entitled to be reinstated under the Act ibid.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that a number of petitioners approached this Court for their re- instatement under the said Act and from time to time various judgments were rendered by this Court in that respect. This Court vide its judgment rendered in Writ Petition No, 1662-P/2013 titled Hazrat Hussain vs. The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar has allowed the said writ petition in the following terms: "It is worth to note that persons similarly, placed with the petitioners have been re-instated by the department while giving effect to the judgments given by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal. More so, one Mst. Gul Rukh whose services were terminated by the respondents alongwith the petitioners, has been appointed under the Act vide order dated 09.05.2013. It is cardinal principle of law that similarly placed persons should be treated alike and no different yard stick should be used while redressing their grievances. It is the hallmark and grundnorm of our constitution that every person is entitled to equal protection of law. Not only similarly placed colleagues of the petitioners have been appointed by the respondents but the petitioners are also entitled to the relief given to the sacked employees under the Act.
For what has been discussed above, we admit and accept both the writ petitions and direct the respondents to consider the petitioners for their appointments in accordance with the provisions of the Act."
Thereafter, the said very judgment was impugned before the august Supreme Court in C.P. No, 401- P of 2016 titled Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Peshawar Vs. Iftikhar Khan etc. alongwith other civil petitions. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan vide its judgment dated 24.05.2017 upheld the judgment passed by this Court in the following terms: "We 'have been apprised by the learned counsel for the respondents that according to the advertisement and appointment letters issued to the respondents, two kinds of candidates could be appointed: (i) those who have the requisite academic qualifications and training; (ii) those who have the requisite academic qualifications but do not possess the necessary training. As regards the second category, such persons would be provided with an opportunity to complete the training within a specific period. This, is exactly what the learned High Court has allowed in the relief granting portion of the impugned judgment. Undoubtedly, this is in consonance with the Department's own advertisement and the terms and conditions of service therefore, the learned High Court did not fall into any error by requiring the Department to allow the respondents to complete the training within a specific period of time and to take action against them in case of failure to do so. No exception can be taken to the impugned judgment, which is upheld. Resultantly, Civil Petition No, 401-P/2016 is dismissed on merit. The connected petitions are also dismissed on the above score and for being time-barred as no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay."
8. It is also transpired from the record of the case that the petitioners have obtained the required qualification after termination of their services which fact has not been controverted by the respondents in their comments. Now, in view of the judgment ibid of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioners are also entitled to be reinstated under the said Act like other similarly placed employees.
9. Keeping in view the above noted reasons and discussion made therein, the present writ petitions along with respective C.Ms, moved by the applicants therein for their implement as petitioners in their respective writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners in line with the judgments of this Court as well as of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan.