2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.

Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 18-10-2010, passed by respondent No.1/Chairman, Punjab Vocational Training Council, Lahore, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from PVTC, Secretariat, Lahore, and posted as Principal, VTI, Sitara Colony, Faisalabad.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the personal interest of the, petitioner has not been taken into consideration while passing .the impugned order, as the petitioner's family resides at Lahore and he is the only male member to look after the entire family. Further contends that the academic sessions of the children of the petitioner is in the middle and ordinarily, the transfers are not made in such circumstances. The learned counsel further contended that the representation of the petitioner is pending before respondent No. 1 and his grievance has not been redressed. The learned counsel argued that the impugned transfer order is the result of victimization as the petitioner had pointed out that respondents Nos.2 and 3 were involved in certain misappropriation, misconduct and financial irregularities. The learned counsel lastly, argued that the transfer order has not been passed in the exigencies of service but just to victimize the petitioner, and as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

3. The learned Additional Advocate-General has opposed the instant petition by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable, on the ground that the employees of PVTC are not governed by any statutory rule and in the case of the present petitioner the principle of Master and Servant: would apply...He has relied upon the cases of Executive Council, Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad v. M. Tufail Hashmi 2010 SCMR 1484 and- Pakistan International Airline Corporation and others v. Tanweer-ur-Rehman and others PLD 2010 SC

676. While referring to the report and parawise comments submitted by the respondents, the Additional Advocate-General also contended that basically the petitioner was inducted into service-as Principal and he was posted in the Head Office against the vacant post of Deputy Manager for a short time to acquire Head Office experience. He further submitted that the representation of the petitioner is no more pending and the same stands decided on 1-11-2010 by respondent No.1, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in person. Adds that the petitioner is avoiding compliance of the transfer order and has absented from the duty.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. The petitioner challenged his transfer order dated 18-10-2010 by filing a representation before respondent No.1, which has been decided, vide letter No.PVTC/HR/10/1911, dated November 1, 2010, after giving him an opportunity of being heard. As the petitioner has already availed the remedy against the impugned transfer order dated 18-10-21110, and a fresh order dated 1-11-2010 has been passed, the present petition form has become infructuous. Even otherwise, the instant petition is not maintainable .for the reason that there are no statutory rules for governing the terms and conditions of service of the employees of PVTC and in absence of statutory rules, any order passed by any authority in the PVTC cannot be termed as a violation amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The principle of law laid down in the cases cited by the learned Additional Advocate-General in his arguments is fully applicable to the present case. The instant petition is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./A-51/L Petition dismissed.