' I intend to decide Writ Petition No,5924 of 2000 and Writ Petition No,6262 of 1998 by one consolidated order having similar facts and law: Writ Petition No,6262 of 1998 ' The petitioners have challenged the vires of the impugned recruitment and promotion policy on the ground that the same is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution qua the petitioners by the respondents whereas in Writ Petition No,5924 of 2000 ' The petitioners have challenged the vires of the order of respondents dated 15-3-2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that policy framed by the respondents is against equity and fair play. He further submits that policy did not provide any chance of promotion to the petitioners. He further submits that policy framed by the respondents is in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:-- 1989 MLD 2153 (Raghunath Prasad Singh's case), and 1994 PLC (C.S.) 449 (Muhammad Ali Qureshi's case).
' He further submits' that the impugned order, dated 15-3-2000 was passed by the respondents, General Manager without applying his mind. He further submits that respondents had given effect to the policy with retrospective effect. He further submits that rules were not framed by the competent authority and in fact the policy/rules were framed by the respondents in violation of the bye-laws of the respondents. Therefore, policy is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that writ petitions are not maintainable and the Rules framed by the respondents are Rules and Regulations of the respondents which are applicable to General Cadre whereas petitioners do not belong to General Cadre. He further submits that the Rules framed by the Board are not statutory Rules. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments: ' PLD 1959 SC 212; ' PLD 1966 SC 445 (Zainul Abidin's case); PLD 1966 SC 864 and ' PLD 1962 SC 315 (Faiz Ahmad's case).
He further submits that petitioners has more than one alternative remedies either to approach the Registrar or Government under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in rebuttal submits that petitioners have no efficacious remedy. The Registrar is the President of the Board of Directors. He further submits that writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention he relied upon (PLD 2000 Lahore 489) Muhammad Zubair Akram's case.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. Without adverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the aforesaid judgments cited by the respondents. However, petitioners are at liberty to avail alternative remedy as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents if so they advised.