1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
NAHID AKHTAR, S.S. (MATH), GOVERNMENT GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, SAHIWAL Versus DIRECTOR, EDUCATION (S.E.), MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN and another
| Citation | 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ch. Muhammad Nasim, J |
| Parties | NAHID AKHTAR, S.S. (MATH), GOVERNMENT GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, SAHIWAL Versus DIRECTOR, EDUCATION (S.E.), MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN and another |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ch. Muhammad Nasim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (NAHID AKHTAR, S.S. (MATH), GOVERNMENT GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, SAHIWAL Versus DIRECTOR, EDUCATION (S.E.), MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Altaf Hussain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Arts. 212(3) & 199‑‑‑Civil service‑‑‑Transfer‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑ Orders for transfer of a civil servant could not be challenged before High Court in Constitutional petition as per provision contained in Art. 212 of the Constitution whereby in any matter falling within jurisdiction of Administrative Court or Tribunal no other Court could grant injunction, make any order or entertain any proceedings in respect of the same‑‑‑High Court, thus, had no jurisdiction to hear Constitutional petition against transfer order of civil servant. Muhammad Shafi etc. v. Education Authorities NLR 1992 TD 728; Muhammad Ramzan v. Provincial Government and others NLR 1992 TD 699 and Nisar Ahmad v. Government of Punjab NLR 1992 TD 672 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Nahid Akhtar petitioner has been transferred from Government Higher Secondary School, Farid Town, Sahiwal to Government Higher Secondary School, Shujabad, District Multan vice Mst. Sajila Nasim respondent No.
2. Expressing that there was no complaint against her and that due to political pressure she has been transferred this writ petition has been filed by her to obtain the proposed relief that her transfer order may be declared as illegal, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. According to her she belongs to such category of the staff of the Elementary and Secondary Education in the Education Department that she could not be transferred in view of the ban imposed in the matter.
2. The comments have been submitted by the Director of Education (S.E.), Multan Division, Multan wherein it has been expressed that the transfer order dated 19‑9‑1994 impugned through this writ petition has been issued in good faith. It is maintained that in view of Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan the matter has to be dealt with by the Service Tribunal, Punjab and not by this Court.
3. I have heard the preliminary arguments. The objection raised by the respondent No. 1 about the jurisdiction of this Court to hear this writ petition must prevail. According to Article 212(2) of the Constitution of our country in any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court A or Tribunal no other Court can grant the injunction, make any order or entertain any proceedings in respect of the same. It has been held in Muhammad Shafi etc. v. Education Authorities (NLR 1992 T.D. 728 Lahore) that the appeal lies from order without jurisdiction just as appeal lies from order with jurisdiction. It has been held in Muhammad Ramzan v. Provincial Government etc. (NLR 1992 T.D. 699) that transfer order relates to terms and conditions of service of a civil servant and is amenable to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. It has also been held in Nisar Ahmad v. Government of Punjab (NLR 1992 TD 672) that orders for transfer are not appropriate subject for agitation before the High Court in the Constitutional writ in view of provisions contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of the country. I, therefore, uphold the objection raised by the respondent No. 1 (Director, Education (S.E.) Multan Division, Multan) that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear this writ petition against the transfer order of Mst. Nahid Akhtar school teachress.
4. I, therefore, dismiss this writ petition in limine. AA./N‑309/L Petition dismissed.