1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Writ Petition No. 12899 of 1994, decided on 22nd November, 1994. ‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 212‑‑‑Transfer of civil servant‑‑‑Petition to seek cancellation of transfer order‑‑ ‑Jurisdiction‑‑ Transfer orders of petitioner and respondent were passed and withdrawn many a time‑‑‑Forest Minister and Chief Minister appeared to have been rendered helpless in the matter‑‑‑Final order in the field was the one whereby earlier order of transfer of petitioner had been cancelled‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑High Court would have no sympathy with any one of the two officials involved, for both of them had been exploiting politicians and making use of their personal influence, and one could not accuse the other of adoption of improper or unfair means in getting a place of posting of his choice‑‑‑Civil servant would go on with their unending "tug‑of‑war" so long as high‑ups do not have courage to say "No"‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, however, could not plainly be invoked, as postulated by Art. 212 of the Constitution‑‑‑Constitutional petition being incompetent and misconceived was dismissed in circumstances. It is a transfer matter. It seems that there has been a `pitched battle ' between Allah Ditta petitioner and one Asghar Ali (who too is in attendance and is also represented by a counsel) for posting at Gujrat, a coveted station, for both of them. The Forest Minister and the Chief Minister, Punjab appear to have been rendered helpless and ineffective in the matter, as orders passed by them were withdrawn or cancelled many a time, with the result that the final order in the field is the one dated 20‑10‑1994 whereby the earlier order dated 3‑10‑1994 has been held in abeyance, as per directive dated 19‑10‑1994 of the Chief Minister, Punjab. Allah Ditta, working in the Office of Conservator of Forests, Development and Working, Lahore Circle, had been transferred to the Office of the D.F.O. Gujrat, and Mr. Asghar Ali, Head Clerk, Office of the D.F.O., Gujrat, had been shifted to Lahore in place of the former.

2. Learned counsel for Allah Ditta petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the D.F.O's. letter dated 16‑10‑1994, addressed on the subject to the Conservator of Forests, Lahore, informing him that Allah Ditta, Assistant had reported arrival in the Office at Gujrat on 11‑10‑1994, and Asghar Ali, Assistant (Head Clerk) had disappeared and was not available in the Office. That developement apart, the fact remains that by a subsequent order dated 20‑10‑1994 the Chief Conservator of Forests, Central Zone, Punjab, in obedinence to the aforesaid directive of the Chief Minister, had held in abeyance the transfer order dated 3‑10‑1994, in pursuance of which Allah Ditta had gone from Lahore to Gujrat and taken over the charge there. Whether or not he had assumed the charge would make little difference, as meanwhile, his adversary, Asghar Ali, had managed cancellation of the order dated 3‑10‑1994.

3. A perusal of the comments submitted by the Chief Conservator of Forests, as also by the Secretary, Forest Department, makes a revealing reading, and reflects very adversely on the woeful state of service indiscipline; and even the Ministers cannot claim `exoneration' in the matter. As already observed, the Chief Executive of the Province appears to be fluttering in helplessness and has to surrender to the wishes of this Official or that Official, turn by turn. If this is how democracy is working in this country, future of administration as also the public interest would be absolutely bleak. During 37 years of his service, Allah Ditta has, for the most of time, remained at Gujrat. So, powerful this Official is that whenever he is shifted elsewhere he manages his transfer back to Gujrat.

4. This was all by the way. The proposition is so simple. This Court does not have sympathy with any one of the two officials involved as both of them have been exploiting politicians and making use of their personal influence, and one cannot accuse the other of adoptation of improper or unfair means in getting a place of posting of his choice. They may go with their unending `tug- of‑war' so long as the high‑ups do not have the courage to say `No'. So far as the writ jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, it cannot plainly be invoked, as postulated by Article 212 of the Constitution. The writ petition is simply incompetent, as also misconceived, and is hereby dismissed. A.A./A-738/L Petition dismissed.