Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHER MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: DIRECTOR-GENERAL, HEALTH SERVICES, N.-W.F.P" PESHAWAR
1997 P L C (C
1997 P L C (C. S.) 940
[Peshawar High Court]
Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur and Nasir‑ul‑Mulk, JJ
Dr. SHER MUHAMMAD
Versus
DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, HEALTH SERVICES, N.‑W. F. P., PESHAWAR and 2 others
Writ Petition No. 1167 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 1365 of 1997, decided on 18th June‑ 1997
(a) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Transfer order‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant challenged his transfer order as he was transferred on the third day of his taking‑over charge‑‑ Transfer order of civil servant. was found neither perverse nor arbitrary or tainted with malice‑‑‑Besides civil servant patently failed to point out that Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to transfer or he was not liable to be transferred‑‑‑Every civil servant under S. 10 of Civil Servants Act, 1973, was liable to serve anywhere, within or outside country on any post under Federal or Provincial Government‑‑‑Civil servant was, thus rightly transferred/posted and required to work at the posted station.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Conditions for invocation.
Before a person is permitted to invoke the discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, he has to show that the impugned order sought to be set aside was either illegal or without jurisdiction and was in any manner tainted with malice i.e., it was mala fide. On the other hand, if the order is not illegal and without jurisdiction, then in that case extraordinary jurisdiction shall not be allowed to be invoked.
Sohail Akhtar for Petitioner.
ORDER
JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J.‑‑‑Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that petitioner Dr. Sher Muhammad, a Senior Medical Officer, was transferred from Tehsil Headquarters Hospital, Dargai, Malakand Agency to Central Jail Hospital, Peshawar by the Director General, Health Services, N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar (respondent No. 1) vide his Order No. 17312‑24/E‑1, dated 19‑5‑1996. On the 3rd day of his taking‑over the charge i.e. to 21‑5‑1997, he was again transferred to Tehsil Headquarters Hospital, Dargai and instead Dr. Nasratullah posted at the Police Hospital, Peshawar (respondent No. 3) was transferred and posted at the Jail Hospital, vide Order No. 10161‑70/E‑I, dated 21‑5‑1997, impugned in this writ petition.
2. Aggrieved, by the said order, the petitioner has challenged its validity by filing this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the available record.
4. From the material, placed on file, it cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, that the impugned order is either perverse or arbitrary. The same is not tainted with malice. Besides; the learned counsel for the petitioner patently failed to point out that the competent Authority had no jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner to Tehsil Headquarters Hospital, Dargai or that the petitioner was not liable to be transferred to the said Hospital.
5. Provisions of section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 are quite clear wherein it has been provided that every civil servant is liable to serve anywhere, within or outside the country, on any post, under the Federal or Provincial Government. The petitioner was, therefore, rightly transferred/posted and required to work at the posted station. This could be legally done even without his consent.
6. Before parting with the case we would like to observe that before a person is permitted to invoke the discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, he has to show that the impugned order sought to be set aside was either illegal or without jurisdiction and was in any manner tainted with malice i.e., it was mala fide. On the other hand, if the order is not illegal and without jurisdiction, then in that case extraordinary jurisdiction shall not be allowed to be invoked.
7. This writ petition having no substance and is dismissed in limine.
M.A.K./2180/P Petition dismissed