1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The relevant facts for the decision of this Constitutional, petition are that the petitioner is elected member and Vice‑Chairman, Cantonment Board, Okara. He has through this Constitutional petition challenged the transfer of respondent No.5 from Shorkot to Okara on the ground that the said respondent remained posted at Okara earlier too and he was involved in case of moral turpitude and the matter was reported to the police. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notice was issued to the respondents. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 have appeared through their learned counsel while respondent No.6 is present in person.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 has raised the preliminary objection as to the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain this Constitutional petition. It is argued that neither the petitioner is aggrieved person nor he has any locus standi to file the petition. It is added that it is within the sole discretion of the employer to see where the employee should be posted. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to the cases of Syed Afzal Ahmad Hydari v. Secretary, Defence Production Division, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and 3 others 1991 SCMR 477), Haji Muhammad Ismail etc. v. Government of the Punjab an 13 others (1987 MLD 2457), Lt.‑Col. Nafis‑ud‑Din Ansari v. Qazi Habib and another. (PLD 1989 Lahore 26), Begum Ismat Azhar v. Punjab Government through Secretary, Education and another (PLD 1987 Lahore 256), Adeeb Jawedani, Correspondent Daily 'WAFAQ', Faisalabad v. Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1987 Lahore 286), Managing Committee, Masjid Muhaireen Lahore v. S. Ijaz Hussain Shah, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and 2 others (PLD 1972 Lah. 245) and Maqbool Ahmad v. M. Sharif (1987 PLC (C.S.) 761).

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is an elected member of the Cantonment Board and it is his obligation to see that the officials with good character are posted in the hospital run by the Board. It is added that even otherwise as the hospital is meant to cater for the needs of the petitioner and the others, therefore, he has right to object to the posting of respondent No.5, who does not bear a good moral character. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to the case of Dr. Abdur Rauf and others v. Sh. Muhammad Iqbal and others 1991 SCMR `483). I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned I counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is apparent from the record that the competent authority was fully posted with the facts and allegation against respondent No.5 while issuing the impugned transfer order. It is within the exclusive domain of the employer to post the employee and this Court cannot interfere in the discretion. The petitioner has no locus standi to the impugned order of transfer because it is a matter between the Government and its servant, respondent No.5. If the respondent is not a fit person character-wise to be posted at Okara then what is the justification to retain him in service? The learned counsel for the respondents has rightly referred to the cases of "Haji Muhammad Ismail etc, Adeeb Jawedani, Correspondent Daily `WAFAQ', Faisalabad and Lt.Col. Nafees‑ud‑Din Ansari" (supra). The case of Dr. Abdur Rauf etc., relied by the petitioner is not relevant on the issue.

5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the preliminary objection is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed in limine. A.A./M‑1902/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition dismissed.