MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, J.- A group of as many 10 Junior Lecturers of the Government College of Technology , Timergara Dir Lower , are imploring the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for a prayer set in: " Under circumstances mentioned above, it is therefore, respectfully prayed that, appropriate writs may be issued to the Respondents granting the following reliefs to the Petitioners:- a. That the NWFP Regularization of Service Act, 2009 may be declared voilative of Article 26 (1) and void under Article 8 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. b. That impugned order bearing No. TEVTA/HR 1/20/27 (79)/755 dated 29.02.2016 rejecting applications of the Petitioners for regularization of their services may bedeclared without jurisdiction, without lawful authority and of no legal ef fect. c. That the Respondents may be directed to refrain from making discrimination with the Petitioners in the matter of their services and the right to the regularization from contract to regular basis an well. d. It may be further directed to Respondents to regularize the Petitioners in their services, who were appointed on contract basis and costs of litigation may also be awarded.
2. These Petitioners are qualified and stated to have been appointed in the prescribed manner as Junior Lecturers on contract basis in Government College of Technology, Timergarah, Dir Lower by an order of the Director General Technical Education and Manpower Training Khyber Pakhkhwa, Peshawar. Initially they have been appointment on contract and later on their service contracts were extended from time to time.
They are still performing their duties with utmost zeal and to the best of their abilities. It is by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 whereby section 3 is discriminatory with regard to the regularization of these employees, which reads as under:- "All employees including recommend ers of the High Court, appointed on contract or Adhoc basis and holding that post on 31st December , 2008 or till the commencement of this act, shall be deemed to have been validly appointed on regular basis having the same qualification and experience for a regular post."
3. As and when this Act was passed the Government became reluctant in regularization of the services of these employees and are remained under contract. That previously identical writ petition has been decided on 11.12.2014 bearing Nos. 2374/2014, when on the same line the Petitioners be also regularized to meet the ends of justice.
4. Previously the Petitioners brought writ petition No. 153-M of 2016 with a view to obtain directive to decide grievance applications but during the pendency of the said writ petition, the Respondents passed the impugned orders declining regularization to the Petitioners, thereby writ petition was allowed withdrawn and this petition having been presented also impugned the orders have now been challenged. Having set their grounds in the writ petition are to be given their respective reliefs for regularization of their services.
5. On calling the comments from the Respondents jointly submitted the defence line, which speaks off that the Petitioners appointment was on the basis of daily wages from student fund for some months each year when the college academic session is on and the Petitioners were engaged out of Student Fund on fixed pay. It was further transmitted through comments that only those government employees were drawing their salaries out of Government allocated budget through the concerned District Account Offices. The District Account Officers allotted the personal numbers. Whereas the Petitioners were purely engaged on fixed pay for academic session out of students fund. Hence prayer was made that because of this reason their regularization in service cannot be awarded.
6. Having heard arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned A.A.G for the Official Respondents, record with their valuable assistance gone through.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners relied on 2014 PLC (C.S.) 609 (Islamabad High Court) Miss Zakia Naurin and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others", unreported judgment of this Court rendered in W.P. No. 1648 of 2007 dated 24.9.2008 titled " Mst. Naveeda Yousaf vs EDO & others", 1997 SCMR 1101 " Dr. Zafar Aziz Khan vs Dr. Shabnam Iqbal Niazi and another", 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1625 (Lahore High Court) " Muhammad Yaqoob vs the Secretary Local Government" and 1997 SCMR 1043 " Mustaq Ahmad Moral vs the Hon'ble Lahore High Court" and prayed for the acceptance of the writ petition as Petitioners have every right like other government employees to be regularized on their respective posts. On the other hand, learned A.A.G referred to 2015 SCMR 1739 "Lahore Development Authority vs Mst. Imrana Tiwana and others" and prayed for utter dismissal of the present writ petition.
8. Although many fold arguments in view of the rights being extended to the Petitioners under the relevant Articles of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the matter could be looked in, but there are strong reservations as similar W.P. No. 1823-P of 2016 titled as " Burhanullah vs the Government of K.P.K" is there in the field. Para 5 of the said judgment is reproduced as under for ready reference:-
5. Record is suggestive that Petitioners were hired purely on contract basis from the student fund, due to acute shortage of teaching staff in the year 2013 & 2014, by the Principals concerned. Learned counsel for Petitioners was directed to address the Court that under which law they are seeking protection as Regularization Act, 2005 nor Regularization Act No. IX 2009 are applicable to the case of Petitioners due to their date of appointments. Learned counsel for the Petitioners failed to convince the Court in this respect."
9. This being the developed scenario, we are unable to accept the prayer of regularization of the Petitioners on the sole score that contractual period has been extended from time to time being paid from the students fund.
10. In view of the above, this petition has got no force, which is hereby dismissed.