MUNIR A. SHAIKH, J.---This intra-Court appeal under section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is directed against order dated 2-11-1993 passed by the learned Single Judge through which Writ Petition No. 15345 of 1993 was dismissed in limine.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants were appointed as Junior Clerks in BPS-5 on ad hoc basis in the Housing and Physical Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore. The Governor through notification dated 17-6-1989 in exercise of powers under Rule 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 and in relaxation of the relevant rules ordered that all appointments made so far on ad hoc basis against vacancies in BPS-1 to BPS-15 in various departments of the Government of the Punjab should be regularized on the conditions mentioned in the said notification which were to the following effect:-- (a)Such appointment fulfilled all conditions of appointment for the posts to which they were appointed on ad hoc basis.
(b)The appropriate Selection Authority considered them fit for appointment to the posts against which their ad hoc appointments were made.
3. Instead of implementing the said order/notification issued by the Governor, the Director, Housing and Physical Planning, Circle Lahore on 28-10-1993 terminated the services of the appellants. Earlier to that on 17-9-1993 the department had invited applications for the appointment of bout 13 Junior Clerks in BPS-5 from which it was evident that the posts were available.
4. The appellants challenged the legality of order dated 28-10-1993 for their termination of services through Writ Petition No. 15345 of 1993 which has been dismissed in limine mainly on the ground that their services were terminated in accordance with Condition No 4 of their letter of appointment and the notification issued by the Governor having not been implemented between 1989 to 1993 the appellants could not press for its implementation after their ad hoc appointment had been put to an end as aforementioned.
5. Argument of learned counsel for the appellants that services of 7 ad hoc appointees appointed simultaneously mentioned in Annexure `E', who were junior to the appellants in the same department, were regularized in pursuance of the order issued by the Governor and the appellants were discriminated though they were senior to them, has force. It was not the case of the respondents that any of the appellants did not fulfil the educational or other qualifications prescribed under the law for appointment against the posts against which they were appointed on ad hoc basis or that the departmental authority found them unfit to hold the said posts. The conditions laid down in the order issued by the Governor for regularization of the services of ad hoc appointees were, therefore, fully fulfilled and the appellants could not be discriminated in the matter of implementation of the orders passed by the Governor and they were also entitled to be regularized as the other ad hoc appointees as mentioned in Annexure `E' who were junior to them had been regularized.
6. It was not a case of enforcement of terms and conditions of a civil servant as prescribed under the Punjab Civil Servants Rules framed under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, whereas the grievance highlighted in the writ petition was that the order of the Governor regarding regularization of ad hoc appointments had not been implemented by the authorities as regards the appellants in the same manner as it was done in respect bf the other ad hoc appointees junior to them as such they had been discriminated which was violative of fundamental right of equal protection of law as enshrined in the Constitution.
7. The order dated 28-10-1993 for termination of services of the appellants for the above reasons is not sustainable.
8. The appeal is accepted. Order dated 2-11-1993 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15345/1993 is set aside. Order dated 28-10-1993 for termination of services of the petitioners is hereby declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and quashed. In the result the appellants shall be deemed to be still in service and their appointments on ad hoc basis shall be regularized from the same date on which the services of other ad hoc appointees, mentioned in Annexure `E' were regularized and they Shall be given all consequential benefits arising therefrom.
There will be no order as to costs.