Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NASEEM FIDA VS Respondent: DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (S.E.), D.G. KHAN
1997 P L C (C
1997 P L C (C.S.) 95
[Lahore High Court]
Before Raja Muhammad Khurshid, J
Mrs. NASEEM FIDA
versus
DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (S.E.), D.G. KHAN and another
Writ Petition No.6901‑S of 1996, decided on 13th October, 1996.
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution Of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 212‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Transfer of civil servant‑‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑‑Transfer of civil servant being "terms and conditions" of service would fall within exclusive jurisdiction vested in Service Tribunal under S, 4, Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974‑‑‑Transfer of civil servant even if made on ground of mala fide, arbitrary or fanciful exercise of power, Constitutional jurisdiction would not be appropriate remedy.
Munshi Muhammad Azam v. A. C. 1996 PLC (C.S.) 415; Ayaz Anjum v. Government of the Punjab and others 1997 PLC (C.S.) 123 and PLD 1995 SC 530 rel.
Pir Muhammad Asif Rafi for Petitioner.
ORDER
It is submitted that the petitioner is transferred vide impugned order, which is assailed on the ground of being mala fide, coram non judice and without jurisdiction.
2. It is contended that the impugned order is in violation of transfer policy having been actuated with malice to harass the petitioner.
3. The transfer of a Government servant being terms and conditions of service falls within the exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Punjab Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. Therefore, the transfer even if made on the grounds of mala fide, arbitrary or fanciful exercise of Authority, writ would not be an appropriate remedy. Reliance can be usefully made upon Munshi Muhammad Azam v. A.C. reported as 1996 PLC (C.S.) 415). The same view was taken by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Ayaz Anjum v. Government of the Punjab and others (1997 PLC (C.S.) 123). Their lordships had made the following observation:‑‑
"Clearly the matters relating to the posting and transfer of a civil servant relates to the terms and conditions of his service. Disputes about these matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate Service Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the High Court is barred in these matters by the express provisions of Article 212(2) of the Constitution. "
4. In view of the foregoing legal position, the writ petition is not competent and the same is dismissed in limine.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he would like to avail the departmental remedy or make a petition before the Service Tribunal to challenge the impugned order. Let him do so. If any departmental remedy is availed and a petition challenging the impugned order is made before the Authority concerned, the same shall be decided in view of the principle laid down in PLD 1995 SC 530 without being influenced by this order passed by this Court, in this writ petition.
A.A./N‑36/L Order accordingly,