PLJ 2006 SC 888
Present: Javed Iqbal and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ.
FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION--Petitioner
Mrs. ZAKIA LATIF and others--Respondents
Civil Petition No. 1596 of 2003, decided on 25.7.2005.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28.5.2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in W.P. No. 2088 of 1999).
, 1973-- Pakistan
& Colleges (Service Regulations, 1988), Reglu. No. 13--Respondent, and ad hoc Senior English Teacher was allocated category 1 by Ministry of Education in the regularization policy--Petitioner's objection regarding her category was turned down by High Court in writ petition--Held: Policy of regularization was made by Government and Ministry of Education, being its component would be in the better position to allocate category to its employees in light of its policy--Leave refused. [Pp. 889 & 890] A Islamabad Model Schools
Mr. Nasir Saeed Sheikh, DAG and Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR for Petitioner.
Mr. Naseer Ahmad, ASC for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 25.7.2005.
Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, J.--This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution has been directed against the judgment dated 28.5.2003 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench in a Constitution petition.
2. The facts in small compass giving rise to the petition are that the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as senior teacher (English) on ad hoc basis, in 1989 under Regulation No. 13 of Islamabad Model Schools and Colleges (Services Regulations 1988) and later she was selected as Senior Teacher (English) on regular basis by a Selection Committee but due to ban on appointment, could not be appointed on regular basis and continued as ad hoc teacher. In 1994 the Federal Government introduced the policy of regularization of the employees who were appointed on ad hoc basis during the period from October 1981 to December 1990 and were classified into two categories for the purpose of regularization. The Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan, having processed the case of respondent, placed her in Category No. 1 but the Federal Public Service Commissions by changing her category, declined to recommend her for regularization on the basis of criteria applicable to the employees of the category in which she was placed by the Ministry. The respondent being aggrieved of the action of petitioner, invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, filed a writ petition in the matter which succeeded and a learned Judge in the High Court directed for treating the respondent in the category in which she was placed by the Ministry of Education.
3. The learned Deputy Attorney General has contended that the categorization of the ad hoc employees for the purpose of regularization was a policy decision and it was in the exclusive domain of the petitioner to place an employee in proper category, therefore, the High Court was not supposed to interfere in the matter. Learned DAG added that the petitioner while strictly observing the criteria for the regularization, placed the respondent in the category to which she actually belonged.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the respondent was entitled for regularization in the light of the criteria prescribed for Category No. 1 in which she was placed by the concerned Ministry and FPSC, by changing her category, has taken away her right of regularization.
5. We having heard the learned counsel for the parties when confronted, learned DAG that respondent being an employee of Ministry of Education was placed in category-1 by the Ministry and how the change of her category by the petitioner, was justified, he without satisfying us regarding the authority of petitioner to change the category of the respondent allocated by the concerned Ministry submitted that the decision taken by the petitioner was quite in consonance with the policy. We are afraid, the policy of regularization was made by the Government and the Ministry of Education, a component of Government, would be in better position to allocate proper category to its employees in the light of the policy in question.
6. In the light of foregoing discussion, we would take no exception to the judgment of the High Court and dismiss this petition. Leave is refused.
(Javed Rasool) Leave refused.
For more, you can consult email@example.com or call +923123450006