P L D 2000 Peshawar 1 (PLP)
MUQEEM KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2000 Peshawar 1 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Mrs. Khalida Rachid, JJ |
| Parties | MUQEEM KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2000 Peshawar 1 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2000 Peshawar 1 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Mrs. Khalida Rachid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2000 Peshawar 1 (PLP) (MUQEEM KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Muazzam Butt for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Arts. 199 & 212‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Petitioner, a school teacher was transferred after about 17 days of his posting due‑to political pressure‑‑‑Posting and transfer fell within the terms and conditions of a civil servant; therefore, under Art.212 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution could not be invoked and in such matter the Service Tribunal had the exclusive jurisdiction‑‑‑Filing of Constitutional petition in such matter deprecated by High Court with observation that giving wrong advice to litigants amounted to misconduct by the counsel. 1991 SCMR 477; PLD 1995 SC 530; 1997 SCMR 167, 1997 SCMR 169, 1997 SCMR 170 and 1997 SCMR 1476 rel. (b) Client and counsel‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Misconduct of counsel‑‑‑Giving. wrong advice to litigant (client) amounted to misconduct.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.‑‑Muqeem Khan, petitioner through this writ petition under article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has challenged his transfer order dated 2‑6‑1999 passed by District Education Officer, Upper Dir (respondent No. 4) to be illegal, without lawful authority and jurisdiction, and thus, is liable to be cancelled.
2. According to the averments of the petition, the petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher (PET) on 17‑11‑1994; that vide Order No.2177‑82/Trans/Adj. dated 15‑5‑1999 he was transferred from G.H.S. Shinkiari to G.H.S. Akhagram, Upper Dir; that after about 17 days of his transfer, he was again transferred from that School to G.M.S. Karkabari vide order dated 2‑6‑1999. According to the petitioner all this was done at the. desire of the Narcotics Minister and that he approached the concerned Authorities but in vain, hence, having no other efficacious .remedy available to him, he has filed the instant writ petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the available material placed on the file.
4. The contention of the learned counsel is that the quick transfer of the petitioner was due to political pressure and are as such mala fide and un sustainable. It is well‑settled that posting and transfer falls within the terms and conditions of a civil servant, therefore, tinder Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution in the matter of terms and conditions of the civil servant being barred cannot be invoked and in such matter the service Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction. It has been held in number of cases by the apex Court of the country that any matter which is relatable to the terms of conditions of a civil servant, would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunal and the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted in such matters in view of Article. 212(2) of the Constitution. Reference can be made to 1991 SCMR 477, PLD 1995 SC 530 and 1997 SCMR 167, 169, 170 and 1476. Consequently this writ petition being misconceived is dismissed in limine alongwith C.M. It may be observed that despite clear provisions in law and the case‑law on the subject, the tendency to file writ petitions in such matters is deprecated. It appears that the litigants are not properly advised by the counsel which amounts to professional misconduct C.M.A./440/P Petition dismissed