Law:

Section:

  Summary – Legal Core Points Issue: Petitioners, appointed on contract basis in a government project as Laboratory Attendants (BS-1), sought regularization of their services. Petitioners' Arguments: They had served for 3–7 years. They claimed entitlement under the Regularization Policy, 2008. Alleged discrimination as fresh recruitment was initiated instead of regularizing their services. Court's Findings: Petitioners were contract employees working against project posts. Under Paragraph 2(b) of the Regularization Policy, 2008, employees working against project/tenure posts are expressly excluded from regularization. Therefore, they did not qualify under the Regularization Policy. Recruitment Process: Under the Amended Recruitment Policy, 2017, project employees were entitled to: Extra interview marks (1 mark per year of service, up to 5 marks). Age relaxation. Petitioners participated in the recruitment process and received these benefits. Having participated, they were estopped (by acquiescence) from challenging the recruitment process later. Project Posts: Some project posts were converted to permanent (non-development) posts. Recruitment to those posts was conducted according to the amended recruitment policy and applicable quota rules, not by automatic regularization. Key Precedent: C.P. No.1453 of 2014 (Supreme Court, 21.01.2015): Employees appointed on contract in a project cannot claim regularization after completion of the project; their appointments remain governed by their contractual terms. Legal Principle: Project employees are excluded from regularization unless specifically covered by policy. Participation in a recruitment process bars later challenge under the principle of estoppel/acquiescence. Held: Petitioners had no legal right to regularization, and no discrimination or illegality was established. Result: Writ petition dismissed.         JUDGMENT SHEET ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR, J: Through the instant writ petition, petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents to regularize their services.    The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Laboratory Attendant BS-1…