2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
WAPDA Versus Miss AMIRA NASREEN and another
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | WAPDA Versus Miss AMIRA NASREEN and another |
| Primary Law | North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (WAPDA Versus Miss AMIRA NASREEN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in both Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 18th September, 2002
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 19-11-2001 passed in Appeals Nos.447(P)/SC/2001 and 448(P)/SC/2001).
S.4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal
Female lady teachers were transferred from their home station to a distant station
One of the teachers was unmarried, while husband of the other was employed at the station from where she was transferred
On posts against which the teachers were working the Authorities wanted to recruit two teachers on contract basis-- Service Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the transfer was. not in public interest. allowed the appeals and transfer orders were set aside
Plea raised by the Authorities was that transfer was their prerogative, therefore, appeals before Service Tribunal were not maintainable
Service Tribunal had rightly found that the transfer, was not in public interest-- Supreme Court under Art.212(3) of the Constitution could grant leave against judgment of Service Tribunal
No question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Art.212(3) of the Constitution was involved
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
By this common judgment, we propose to decide Civil Petitions Nos. 118 and 119 of 2002 as questions of law and facts are identical in both of them.
2. The respondents in both these petitions are female teachers who were posted at Peshawar from where Miss Amira Nasreen, respondent in Civil Petition No. 118 of 2002 was transferred to Tarbella Dam whereas Mrs. Farah Akhtar, respondent in Civil Petition No. 119 of 2002 to Mardan. They challenged their transfer orders by tiling appeals before the Service Tribunal which have been accepted through the impugned judgment dated 19-4-2001 and their transfer orders set aside Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the prerogative of the petitioner-Department to transfer any of its employees from one station to another, therefore, the appeals before the Service Tribunal were not maintainable.
4. We have noticed that the Service Tribunal has taken note of the fact that after transfer of the respondents, the posts against which they were working, the petitioner-Department wanted to recruit .two teachers on contract basis, therefore, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the transfer of the respondents was not in, the public interest. One of the respondents is unmarried and the husband of the other employed at Peshawar.
5. Apart from what has been stated above, under Article 212 of the Constitution, it is within the discretion of this Court to grant leave against the judgment of the Service Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of these cases, we do not feel disposed to exercise discretion to grant leave. Besides no question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution is also involved.
6. For the foregoing reasons, these petitions have no merits which are hereby dismissed and leave refused. M.H./W-36/S Petitions dismissed.