2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
KHALID MEHBOOB Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 4 others
| Citation | 2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Balochistan High Court |
| Bench Members | Rozi Khan Barrech and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, JJ |
| Parties | KHALID MEHBOOB Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 4 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Balochistan High Court bench comprising: Rozi Khan Barrech and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (KHALID MEHBOOB Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rauf Atta for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 199 & 212
Matter relating to terms and conditions of service
Exclusive jurisdiction of administrative tribunals and ouster of jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Petitioner assailed a notification whereby his services as a Project Director were suspended on charge of week administration, lack of interest in procurement process, negligence and inefficiency
Petitioner was admittedly a civil servant and was just transferred as a Project Director so the bar contained in Art. 212 of the Constitution was attracted vis- -vis jurisdiction of the High Court
Questions raised by the petitioner on the notification could be considered and adjudicated upon by the relevant Service Tribunal
Only in extraordinary circumstances of great public importance the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution could be invoked
Constitutional petition, being not maintainable, was dismissed. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment, Islamabad v. M.Y. Labib-ur-Rehman and others 2021 SCMR 1554 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AAMIR NAWAZ RANA, J.
Through this petition the notification bearing No. SOA,1-6/2022/3466-70 dated 13th July, 2022 has been assailed by the petitioner, whereby the services of the petitioner as Project Director, Awaran Dam were suspended on account of weak administration and lack of interest in procurement process of Awaran Dam Project; due to negligence and inefficiency as per notification the procurement process could not be completed on time leading to non-execution of the project.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner is a civil servant (BPS-19) Officer of Irrigation Department Government of Balochistan and pursuant to Notification bearing No. SOA, 1-6/2021/3110-17 dated 3rd September, 2021, the services of petitioner were transferred and he was posted as Project Director, Awaran Dam Project. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently pointed out the illegalities in the impugned notifications whereby the petitioner was suspended and as per learned counsel Junior Officer was posted against the said post which according to learned counsel is gross violation of applicable rules and law. Further the learned counsel alleged mala fide on part of the concerned respondents; resulting in the shape of impugned notification against the petitioner. Arguments heard at length and after due deliberations, it is noted that since petitioner is admittedly a civil servant and was just transferred and posted as Project Director, Awaran Dam so the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is attracted vis-a-vis jurisdiction of this Court; in this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled as "Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment, Islamabad v. M.Y. Labib-ur-Rehman and others"(1) the relevant excerpt is reproduced as under: "
There is no denial to this fact that the bare reading of the said Article is of significant importance especially with reference to its exclusive jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to terms and condition of service. Hence, in all eventualities any petition relating to terms and condition of service is to be dealt with by administrative courts and tribunals specifically established for its adjudication in pursuance of Article 212 of the Constitution. As a general principle, the framers of the Constitution while inserting the said provision have ousted the jurisdiction of other courts including the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution".
3. That the learned counsel attempted to point out different mala fides and submitted that against mala fide actor order of the Government functionaries writ jurisdiction is always available, we are afraid that this submission is also devoid of any legal substance as all these questions can be considered and adjudicated upon by the relevant Service Tribunal; and only in extra ordinary circumstances of great public importance the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution can be invoked.
4. Since, the petitioner was transferred and posted vide order dated 03rd September, 2021 as Project Director, Awaran Dam Project and he remained on the said post till his suspension vide impugned order and as petitioner was transferred and posted as Project Director and was not appointed as Project Director in accordance with policy/guidelines provided by Planning Commission Government of Pakistan Ministry of Planning, Development and Special Initiatives, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any such protection provided by policy/guidelines issued by Planning Commission Government of Pakistan Ministry of Planning, Development and Special Initiatives with regard to appointment of Project Directors and protection to their tenures. That in view of bar contained in Article 212 of Constitution and considering judgment of Apex Court mentioned above, it is held that petition being not maintainable is dismissed in limine, however, petitioner is at liberty to approach competent forum for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law. SA/123/Bal. Petition dismissed.