Sadaat Shah VS Govt

JUDGI!,IENT SI{EET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

ABtsOTTABAD BENCH

,I U D TC I A L D E PARI'|T E N7'

Writ Fetition No.l00l-A of 2Al'7

JUI}GNItrNT

Date ql hearing... ... ... ... ...1 1.10.2A18 Petitionerk).(Sadaqat Shah & others) by Syed l.:[uharak Shalt. Ad,ocate.

Respondent(s). (Government of KPK & others) h.,- Mr. Yasir Zahoor Abbasi, Assist: AG.

SYED MUHAMMAD A.TTIOUE SHAH. J.-

Through this single.iudgment u'e shall also decide WP No. l06A-N2017 (Titled: Muhammad I'ay,.v-az etc versus Goventment of KPK etc) and WP No. 369-N2018 (Titled: Saddam Hussain verst$ Govenunent o"/ KPK & others) as in all the tirree petitions one and salne point/question is invoived.

2.Brief but relevant facts as per contents of the petitions are that in response to the adverlisernent lloated by the respondents on 04.07.2018 in Daily "Masbaq" for appointments of class-iv, the petitioners being eligible candidates applied for their appointments and a{ter going through the process of intervie*'s by tbe selection cornmittee, they were duly appointed as class-iv and then after completion of all the codal A tbrmalities" they started to perfonn their duties at

the place of their posting but respondent No. 3 rvithout mentioning any reason on the basis of so- called inquiry and recommendations of the departmental selection cornmittee terminated the seryices of the petitioners vide ofllce orders dated: 28.09.20 17 and 02. 1 0.20 1 7.

3.Arguments hea"rd and record perused.

4.Perusal of the record reveals, that tl.re present petitioners were appointed as class-iv in respondents' departrnent. However, iater, their services r,l,ere tenninated by respondent No.3 vide impugned ottce orders dated: 28.09.201.7 and 02.10.2017. However, it transpires llom the appointment order of the petitioners that their positions and status u.,ere of civil servants, thus, the impugned orders of respondent No.3 dated 28.09.2017 and 02.10.2017 directly relate to the terms and conditions of their seruices. which is not amenable to the writ.jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution in view of the bar contained in Articie 212 of the Constitution of 1973. Reliance is piaced on case titled'Pir Muhammacl Vs. Government of Balushislan through Chief Secretury and others

,( 2OO7 SC1VIR

5.Moreover, it is also evident from record of the case, that the petitioners have not made departrnental appeals/representations against the irnpugned orders. Rather, they have straightaway impugned the same before this Court through present petitions on 16-10.2017, 27.10.2017 and 28.03.2018. Therefore, in the peculiar facts, circumstances of the present rvrit

J

petitions, this Cotut in the larger interest ofjustice, and in the light of case larv reported as 2017 PLC (C.S), 692 and 20A4 PLC (C.S) 1240, treats the present petitions as deparlmental representations/ appeals of the petitioners with directions to respondent No.2 to consider the grievance of petitioners and decide tire rnatter, strictly in accordance with the law, and also provide an opportunity of hearing, within a period of thirty days, from the date of receipt of this judgment/order, and decision so made be also communicated to the petitioners.

Dt.l1.10.2018.

JTI E

.IUDGE

Ho 'ble.l slice, Lol Jan Khattak & Hon'ble Jntice Syed lvftthannnd,4ttique Shah