2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Alhaj Elahi Sh. for Respondent. Dates of hearing: 20th and 25th February, 2003. This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition No.2454 of 2000 and Writ Petition No.2270 of 2000 as common question of fact and law is involved in these writ petitions.

2. In these Constitutional petitions the petitioners have prayed for setting aside orders dated 24-5-2000, (issued on 26-5-2000), whereby, their services were terminated.

3. The relevant facts for the disposal of these petitions are that Waqar Ahmad, petitioner (Writ Petition No.2454 of 2000) was appointed as Divisional Accountant on 22-9-1994 on ad hoc basis and, later on, he was posted as Divisional Incharge on 2-11-1995. Tauseef Ahmad, petitioner (in Writ Petition No.2270 of 2000) was appointed as District Incharge on 22-9-1994 on ad hoc basis. However, services of both the petitioners were terminated vide orders dated 24-5-2000 (issued on 26-5-2000). Now the petitioners have challenged their termination orders in these writ petitions.

4. I have heard.the argument and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that these writ, petitions are not maintainable because petitioners could challenge termination orders only before the Service Tribunal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there is no Service Tribunal for challenging impugned orders, therefore, writ petitions are maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that Tauseef Ahmad, petitioner, had filed Appeal No.751 (L) (C.S.) of 2002 before Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore Bench. Lahore against his transfer order dated 8-2-2002 which was decided or, merits on 2-1-2003, therefore, contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is devoid of force. .He has placed on record copy of appeal and copy of order dated 2-1-2003. Mr. Abdullah Yousuf Bhatti. Advocate. learned counsel for the petitioners admits that Tauseef Ahmad petitioner had filed the said appeal.

6. The perusal of order, dated 2-1-2003 shows that Tauseef Ahmad, petitioner, had filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal; Lahore, Lahore Bench, Lahore against the transfer order dated 8-2-2002. His appeal was decided after hearing the respondents and on merits, therefore, now petitioners cannot say that there was no Service Tribunal for filing appeal against impugned orders. The petitioners have alleged that impugned orders are mala fide. According to the case of Syed Mazhar Hussain Bukhari v. The Secretary, Government of Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore (1998 SCMR 1948) such petitions are not maintainable and even orders challenged on the ground of mala fides being appealable before Service Tribunal are barred by Article 212 of the Constitution to be challenged before High Court in writ petition. In these circumstances. I find that these writ petitions are not maintainable.

7. The upshot of the above discussion is that these writ petitions have no force and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. H.B.T./W-77/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed