MUHAMMAD PASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.--In 1958 the petitioner joined with respondent No.4 as Field Assistant. At the time of his joining with respondent No.4 he was a Matriculate. Under the departmental rules, 25t/, of the vacancies of Agriculture Officers B Grade are to be filled in by way of promotion from amongst the Field Assistants. The post of Agriculture Officer carries BPS-16 and the recruitment to the extent of 75% is made thereto by direct appointment. In the year 1978 the Agriculture Department while implementing the Government decision to fill in the vacancies of the Agriculture Officers to the extent of 25% from amongst the Field Assistants promoted as many as 20 Agriculture Officers but placed them in BPS-9. The petitioner has been promoted as Agriculture Officer B Grade and the qualifications of the petitioner are equal to those of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.532 of 1978, 375 of 1983 and 269 of 1983. The petitioner applied to respondents 3 and 4 for the grant of BPS-16 on the authority of the judgments of this Court in the above-- quoted three Writ Petitions but no action has been taken in spite of his repeated representations. Instead, the petitioner has been informed that the Finance Department has not agreed to allow BPS-16 to any of such promotees unless he had invoked successfully the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
2. In the circumstances, the petitioner in this Constitutional Petition has called in question the legality of order dated 25-10-1984 passed by respondent No 4 and besides seeking the annulment of the orders of respondent No.4 in placing him in RP") on hi; promotion as Agriculture Officer B Grade on the ground of their being fide and discriminatory, also claimed to be placed in BPS-16 inter alia, on the following grounds:- "(i)That the petitioner has been promoted as Agriculture Officer respondents Nos.3 and 4 and on his promotion as Agriculture Officer is entitled for treatment at par with his colleagues. The post of Agriculture Officer carries BPS-16 which cannot be withheld from the petitioner to his detriment specially when the petitioner has the same qualifications which are possessed by other promotee officers who have since been granted BPS-16; and (ii)That the respondents are acting arbitrarily and illegally by being adament in not allowing BPS-16 to the petitioner in spite of the declaration of this Honourable Court in as many as three writ petitions, referred to above, which have become final and the orders which have been fully implemented by the Provincial Government. In spite of it the reluctance of the respondents in allowing BPS-16 to the petitioner amounts to discrimination against the petitioner which is neither warranted in law nor in equity."
3. S. Zafar Abbas Zaidi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the authority of Writ Petition No.375 of 1983 contended that the position obtaining in the department now is that initial recruits, notwithstanding their higher academic qualifications, have been placed in BPS-16 while the petitioner is placed in BPS-9, although all of them are performing the same duties and sharing the same responsibilities in the same department which would tantamount to discrimination amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of a proper writ.
4. Mr. Ejaz Muhammad, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, did not controvert the illegality of the impugned order. He candidly conceded at the Bar that in view of verdict of this Court in three earlier Writ Petitions he was not in a position to support the impugned order.
5.We have perused the order dated 25-5-1986 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.375 of 1983. The grievance of the petitioners therein was that on their promotion from the post of Field Assistant to that of Agriculture Officer they had been wrongly placed in BPS-9, on the strength of a Note appearing in column 6 against serial No.10 (relating to Extension Wing) of the Schedule annexed to N.-W.F.P. Agriculture Department (Recruitment and Appointment) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter called as the Rules) whereas they should also have been placed in BPS-16 which is allowed to an Officer of the same rank initially recruited. The Division Bench had in turn placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.532 of 1978 in compliance whereof the petitioners therein whose case was identical with those of the petitioners in Writ Petition No375 of 1983 were allowed BPS-16 by a notification issued by the Provincial Government on 5-2-1981. The proposition that fell for determination in all the three Writ Petitions cited above was as to whether the Note appearing in column 6 against serial No.10 of the Schedule annexed to the Rules was discriminatory and hence violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Article 25 of our Constitution consists of three clauses, the first of which enjoins "all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law". It is now settled law that if the administrative organs of the State while applying the law were to discriminate between the civil servants of the same class and exercise what may be characterized as arbitrary authority singling out some persons for discriminatory treatment they would be, acting counter to the ideal of equality before law which has been proclaimed by the framers of the Constitution in the first part of Article 25--an Article which declares that all citizens are equal before law.
6.The next question that arises is as to whether Note appearing in column 6 against serial No.10 of the Rules cited above is without any reasonable basis and, therefore, is purely arbitrary. Article 2-S ibid merely requires that all persons ' subjected to a law shall be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions both in privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed. It seems to have been designed to prevent any person or class of persons from being singled out as a subject specially for discriminating and hostile treatment. The impugned order when placed on the touchstone of discrimination is certainly hit by the principle B enunciated against such discriminatory and arbitrary administrative action. To the same effect were decisions of this Court in Writ Petitions No.532 of 1978, 375 of 1983 and 269 of 1984. We are in respectful agreement with the dictum of the Division Benches of this Court in the Writ Petitions referred to above.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this petition with costs and direct that notwithstanding the Note contained in column 6 against serial No.10 of the Schedule annexed to the Rules the petitioner is entitled to BPS-16 as long as he holds the post of Agriculture Officer or any other equivalent post.