This judgment shall dispose of W.Ps. Nos. 4440/91, 619/93, 8642/91 and 627/93, in which common questions of law fall for determination.
2. The petitioners in all these petitions were appointed on ad hoc basis as Water Management Officers in the Agriculture Department by the Government of Punjab. According to them, they hold an Engineering qualification and are Engineers by profession. On .18-1-1989, a directive was issued by the Provincial Government to the effect that the services of all the Engineers working in different departments of Government of the Punjab may be regularised. Pursuant to that notification, 215 Assistant Engineers working on ad hoc basis in different departments of Government of the Punjab were granted regular employment. However, the benefit of the aforesaid directive was refused to the petitioners on the plea that they were not holding an engineering post. Aggrieved, they have come to this Court by filing this Constitutional petition.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of this petition on the strength of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. By the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, who has contended that as the. Dispute raised in these petitions is germane to the terms and conditions of civil servants, these petitions are not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, on the other hand, submitted that as the petitioners are being unfairly discriminated against, they are entitled to approach this Court especially when they are ad hoc employees are not regularly appointed civil servants.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate-General is well-taken.
6. Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, ordains that where a Tribunal has been appointed for determining the dispute relating to the terms and conditions of a civil servant, no other Court including this Court shall exercise any jurisdiction. Although it is correct that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis, but that hardly improves their case, inasmuch as according to the definition of civil servant as contained in the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, any person holding a post in connection with the affairs of the Province is a civil servant. Although there are certain exclusions from the definition as mentioned in clauses (i) to (iii) but ad hoc employees do. Not fall within the purview of any of these exceptions. It is thus obvious that the petitioners are civil servants within the meaning of this Act. The dispute as to whether the services of the petitioner' are liable to be regularised relates to the terms and conditions of their service and is, as such, not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court.
In view of what has been stated above, these petitions are held to be not maintainable and are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
The petitioners may, if so advised, seek an appropriate remedy before an appropriate forum.