Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ASIF ALI VS Respondent: PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
1991 P L C (C
1991 P L C (C.S.) 524
[Lahore High Court]
Before Ihsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry, J
ASIF ALI
Versus
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
Writ Petition No. 6852 of 1990, heard on 3rd December, 1990.
Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)---
----S. 9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Transfer---Transfer recommended by Minister valid even if ban had been imposed by Government-- Petitioner, a Patwari challenging his transfer from one Halqa to another Halqa on recommendation of Minister---Respondent in whose place petitioner was transferred represented that he was posted at a distant place from home and his request having found favour with Minister, Minister recommended transfer in place of petitioner---Petitioner failed to show any violation of Law or Rules-- Interference declined in Constitutional petition.
Ch. Muhammad Ilyas Kamal for Petitioner.
Rana Muhammad Arshad Addl. A.-G. with Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 3rd December, 1990.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is serving as a Patwari in Irrigation Department. He was transferred from Halqa Chak Chaudhary to Halqa Tondey vide order dated 18-9-1990. The petitioner has challenged this order through this Constitutional petition; which was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents, who have entered appearance and contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that the respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to order transfer of the petitioner, therefore, the order is bad in law.
3. On the other hand, learned Addl. A: G. argued that the Provincial Government imposed a ban on the transfers of the civil servants and according to the policy circular dated 18-3-1990, transfers could only be made with the approval of the Ministers. Therefore, there is nothing wrong if the Minister directed the transfer of respondent No. 2. It is added that even otherwise under section 9 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1975 the petitioner is liable to be posted anywhere.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The Minister only recommended transfer and the order was issued by respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 3 represented to the Minister that he is posted at a distant place from his home, therefore, may be transferred. The request was found genuine and the Minister recommended his transfer. There is nothing wrong with the recommendation. The order was passed by respondent No. 2. The petitioner has failed to show any violation of law or rules. Therefore, it is not a fit case for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction.
The result is that the writ petition is dismissed.
M.Y.H./A-1196/L Petition dismissed.